THE CHURCH, 



MINISTRY AND WORSHIP; 



A REPLY 



TO THE RECENT WORK OF REV. MONTGOMERY SCHUYLER, A. M., 
ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 



BY M. LA RUE P. THOMPSON, 

PASTOR OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BUFFALO, N, Y. 



He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and 
searcheth him. — Prov. viii : 17. 



BUFFALO: 



T. AND M. BUTLER, PUBLISHERS, 

No. 159 Main Street. 

1851 






Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1851, by 

T . & M. BUTLER, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Northern 

District of New York. 



Drew TfceoJL Semu 



STEAM PRESS OF JEWETT, THOMAS & CO. 
COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER OFFICE, 

BUFFALO, N. Y, 



To the members of the several Presbyterian churches and 
congregations in the city of Buffalo, and to all others who love 
the primitive and apostolic simplicity of Christian order and 
worship, the following pages are respectfully dedicated by 

Their sincere friend, 

THE AUTHOR. 
Buffalo, May, 1851. 



THE CHURCH, 



MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 



The general character and design of this volume may be 
understood from the title page. It is necessary only to remark, 
that by "the church" is not meant the Episcopal church, 
nor the Presbyterian church, nor any church of a sect, but 
the church of Christ The term is used in its general and 
catholic sense. 

It has been the author's aim, in opposition to the erroneous 
statements and incorrect reasonings of the book which he 
reviews, to present and defend the true scripture doctrine con- 
cerning " the church, its ministry and worship." He trusts that 
nothing will be found upon his pages unbecoming the serious 
and important theme which he has in hand. Toward the gen- 
tleman who occupies the position of an opponent, he entertains 
no other feelings than those of kindness, and would deeply 
regret the cause, whatever it might be, that should serve to inter- 
rupt the pleasant neighborly intercourse with him, which he 
has hitherto enjoyed. He can truly say that no offense was 
taken at the freedom of that gentleman's strictures on his ser- 
mon, and he feels confident that none will be given by the 
exercise of a similar freedom in return. 

Some apology is due for the size of this book. Nothing of 
the kind was intended by the author when he began to write. 



6 THE CHURCH, 

The two most common excuses for all wrong doing may be 
most truthfully urged by him. He did n't mean it, and could n't 
help it. It can easily be understood how an error may be stated 
in few words, which will require pages to be written for its 
adequate refutation. Besides, to make a small book on a great 
theme, demands an amount of leisure, which, those who are 
familiar with the author's circumstances, well know he could 
not command. 

He offers his work to the public with diffidence, as the result 
of hurried labor, under the pressure of many more important 
duties, persuaded, nevertheless, that it will be found not wholly 
unworthy of that careful perusal which he bespeaks for it. 

It is proper to add, by way of explanation to those who 
looked for the appearance of this volume at an earlier date, that 
it was substantially written, and ready for the press, eight months 
ago ; and would have been issued at that time but for the infirm 
state of the author's health, which interrupted all his labors, and 
for a large portion of the winter rendered it necessary for him 
to seek recovery at a distance from his city and home. 



AN UNJUST ACCUSATION. 

Mr. Schuyler says, in his preface, that the lectures of which 
his book is mainly composed, were called forth by my sermon 
on the office of a bishop, " in which a most reckless attack was 
made upon Episcopacy, with an abundance of bold assertions, 
advanced with all the confidence of argument." In regard to 
what is intimated in the latter part of this sentence, it is sup- 
posed that the readers of the sermon are fully capable of form- 
ing their own opinions. But I am charged with having made 
"a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy." It seems to be 
implied by this, that the controversial aspect of my sermon was 
unprovoked. An uninformed person would surely imagine 
from the manner in which the charge is brought, that in the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 7 

midst of profound peace, with nothing going before to justify 
me, I had suddenly broken forth in a violent assault upon the 
Episcopal church. Was it really so ? Did my accuser quite 
forget the book on " The Three Reformations," edited by the 
Reverend Dr. Shelton, and published just previous to the de- 
livery of my sermon, with a preface full of the worst kind of 
Episcopal assumptions, and the most insulting insinuations 
against all other bodies of professing christians ? 

I have no fondness for controversy ; and never, I trust, shall 
be found recklessly provoking it. I challenge all who know 
me, to say if I am disposed to be quarrelsome. Nothing would 
be so grateful to my feelings, as to be in actual and visible 
fraternal concord with all good men. My soul longs for the 
establishment of a true and loving brotherhood among all 
those who, under different sectional names, profess the common 
faith and common hope of the Gospel ; and in all the glorious 
future revealed in the promises of God to his people, my eye 
sees nothing that more affects and delights my heart. ISTo 
prayer do I offer more fervently, than for the speedy coming of 
that day, which is destined to witness, not the abolition of sects, 
but of sectarian jealousies and strifes, and the honest, warm- 
hearted, whole-hearted co-operation of all Christ's friends in 
extending and establishing his kingdom. 

"A most reckless attack upon Episcopacy!" Look at it. 
Here is a sect styling itself " the church" arrogating all the 
rights and prerogatives of the church of God on earth, with 
the exception of that degree of participation with itself to 
which it admits the Romish and Greek churches, denouncing 
all besides as heretics and schismatics, without church, minis- 
try, or sacraments ; teaching this in its formularies, and proclaim- 
ing it ceaselessly from its pulpits and its presses ; and when a 
word is spoken by one of another sect against such assumptions, 
it is " a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy ! " 

A Presbyterian minister, at a Presbyterian ordination, in a 
Presbyterian pulpit, to a Presbyterian congregation, preaches a 



8 THE CHURCH, 

sermon to show the true scriptural character of a Presbyterian 
bishop, and lo ! it is " a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy ! *' 

That sermon is printed, and the occasion is taken for review- 
ing, in an appendix, a recent Episcopal publication, in which 
are exhibited all the conceit and arrogations of " the church" 
so called, a publication edited and prefaced by his next door 
Episcopal neighbor, and, horror of horrors ! innocence is at the 
stake again; it is " a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy !" 

Will my friend gain sympathy for himself or for his cause, 
by such an attempt to fasten an odious charge on me I It 
ill becomes our brethren of that denomination, in any circum- 
stances, to talk of being attacked. In the present instance 
the charge is especially unfortunate. 



SOMETHING AMUSING. 

It is amusing to observe the wondrous air of meekness, and 
of inoffensive, child-like amiability, assumed by our Episcopal 
friends, and the appearance of deep surprise which they occa- 
sionally exhibit, that any one should feel himself injured or 
aggrieved by what they say and do. See a beautiful example 
of this at the opening of our author's introductory discourse, 
on the seventh page. 

" Surrounded as we are at the present day, with such a 
variety of contending sects, all claiming to form part of Christ's 
body, which is his church, and differing, as we know Ave do 
from them, in many important particulars, it becomes us to see 
to it that we are built upon ' the foundation of the prophets 
and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
stone.' As to the nature or validity of the claims which 
others may present for such a foundation, we do not design to 
speak : ' to their own master they stand or fall.' We have not 
undertaken this subject in a spirit of controversy, and, in 
dependence on divine grace, have determined, while we shall 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 9 

fearlessly advocate what we hold to be divine truth, to say 
nothing which, rightly understood and received, can give just 
cause of offense to those who differ from us. At the same tune, 
I would take this occasion to remark, that I shall not hold 
myself responsible for inferences, which others may be pleased 
draw from the positions I shall attempt to establish." 

" As to the nature and validity of the claims vjhich others 
may present for such a foundation we do not design to 
speak." Oh no, not a word ; but we intend to show that every 
inch and hair's-breadth of that foundation is fully occupied by 
ourselves ! We intend to make such an exhibition of our own 
exclusive possession of that ground, as shall convince all who 
attend to us, that whatever claims others may present to be 
upon it, their feet are really dangling in the air ! We have 
determined to say nothing disrespectful of them, or of their 
pretensions. If they think they have a right to call themselves 
churches of Christ, and their ministers, ministers of Christ, and 
their sacraments, ordinances of Christ, we shall not say that 
they are deceived, nor shall we say that they are impostors for 
claiming such things before the world ; we shall barely show, in 
the exercise of all christian kindness, that our church is the 
only true church of Christ that there is in the world, and its 
ministry the only ministry, and its sacraments the only sacra- 
ments; and " we shall not hold ourselves accountable 

FOR THE INFERENCES WHICH OTHERS MAY BE PLEASED TO 



DRAW 



MP' 



" We have not undertaken this subject," says our author, " in 
a spirit of controversy, and, in dependence on divine grace, 
have determined to say nothing, which rightly understood and 
received, can give just cause of offense to those who differ 
from us." It is to be regretted that he did not tell us, how we 
are to understand and receive these exclusive assumptions of 
his church, so as not to find in them just cause of offense. 

We are not offended with our Episcopal friends for differing 
from us. We are not offended with them for being Episcopalians. 



10 THE CHURCH, 

If it suits them, they may be in all respects precisely what 
they are, abating the miserable folly and impertinence of 
those pretensions, by which they seek to injure and degrade 
others, and we will engage that their tender sensibilities shall 
never be wounded again by " a reckless attack " from us. Let 
them adopt the moderate views so ably stated and defended by 
archbishop Whately, in his " Kingdom of Christ " — let them 
come down from their high stilts, and consent to tread the 
common earth with their brethren, and we pledge ourselves 
that they shall never be molested. We will say to them as 
Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no strife I pray thee, 
between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy 
herdsmen, for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before 
thee ? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me ; if thou wilt 
take the left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart 
to the right handj then I will go to the left." We will not 
consent to be trod upon, nor to yield to them exclusive posses- 
sion of God's footstool. So long as they attempt the former, 
or claim the latter, we shall feel constrained to show them that 
the attempt is disagreeable to us, and the claim fanatical and 
foolish. Their innocence of any design to give offense will not 
protect them. When we feel the sharp ends of their stilts 
trampling us, or their elbows jostling us, we shall certainly 
begin to draw inferences unfavorable to the kindness of their 
intentions, whether they say any thing or not ; and if they do 
not " hold themselves accountable for the inferences which we 
drato" we, at least, shall hold them so. They may rely upon 
it, such treatment will not be so " understood and received" as 
not to be construed into "just cause of offense." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 11 

THE CHURCH — ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 

This is the title upon the back of Mr. Schuyler's book, which, 
when we examine farther, we find to be equivalent in his mind, 
with the Protestant Episcopal church, its ministry and wor- 
ship. Such is the doctrine. The Protestant Episcopal church 
is the church, at least, so far as all protestantdom is concerned. 

Now the question arises, whether, in this, "just cause of 
)ffense " is afforded to other protestant christians. Suppose 
;hat a small body of citizens among us, associated for political 
purposes, should put forth, in a book entitled " The State, its 
Dfncers and Institutions," a labored argument to show that they 
ire the state, that they alone have the constitutional right to 
■ule in the state, and to administer its institutions. My mind 
nay be singularly obtuse, but it does seem to me, that other 
dtizens would find it extremely difficult to avoid drawing the 
nference that something very like an assault was intended 
lpon certain rights and privileges of their own. I can not but 
hink, if the general expression assumed any other form than 
hat of simple derision, that we should hear loud and earnest 
voices of protestation ; nor should I be surprised, if some very 
tevere things were said about the presumption and arrogance 
)f the men who were found setting up these haughty and 
upercilious claims. 

Such is precisely the attitude which our Episcopal friends 
ire taking in the midst of us, and for this, and this only, we 
complain of them. We claim to have the same interest in the 
church, and the same rights in it, with themselves, and it 
vould be the merest pusillanimity in us, to sit still and allow 
hem to propagate their doctrine without impediment. 

Let it not be said, when we oppose these exscinding and 
irrogant pretensions of Episcopalians, that we are opposing the 
Episcopal church. Let the Episcopal church live and flour- 
sh. Our prayer to God is, that he will build it up in faith, 



12 THE CHURCH, 

and love, and humility, and every grace, and preserve it a faith- 
ful and holy church, to the honor of Christ as long as the 
world stands ; for we believe that its idiosyncracies are suited to 
the indiosyncracies of a great multitude of minds ; and that 
it is adapted to do much good which never could be done by 
any other existing agency. But let not the Episcopal church 
claim to be the church, to the exclusion of other churches as 
sound in the faith, as pure in practice, and as devoted to the 
honor and glory of God as herself. This is false doctrine, 
which we feel impelled, not only by the instincts of self-preser- 
vation, but by a high and solemn sense of duty, to resist. 



MR. SCHUYLER'S POSITION. 

For the exact position taken by our author, the reader may 
be referred to a passage occurring on page eighth, in his intro- 
ductory lecture. He says, 

"We shall discuss our claim to be the church founded 
by Christ and his apostles, as an independent question; 
simply endeavoring to prove that the church, as episcopally 
constituted, is after the apostolic model, and that thus consti- 
tuted, we have received it, by a regular line of succession, from 
the apostles themselves." 

That which is here proposed for discussion is, " our claim to 
be the church," &c, &c. This looks like a very simple prop- 
osition, and the ordinary reader would, of course, suppose that 
an attempt is about to be made to prove that the Episcopal 
church, as it exists in this country, and in Great Britain, and 
wherever else it has been established, is " the church, founded 
by Christ and his apostles," comprehensive of every thing that 
belongs to the church of Christ on earth, and exclusive of 
very thing besides which bears the name of a church. But 
this, evidently, is not our author's meaning ; for when he comes 
to his argument, on page thirty-five, the form of his statement 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 13 

is changed, and his readers are invited to an examination of 
"our own claims to be a true branch of the apostolic church." 
It can not, therefore, be of the Episcopal church that he is 
speaking on page eighth, for surely he would not be guilty of 
so great a solecism as to call a branch of the church, the church. 
A branch of the church, can no more be the church, than a 
branch of a tree can be the tree, or a branch of a river, the 
river. What then does he mean, when he proposes to discuss 
" our claim to be the church ? " &c, &c„ Whose claim will 
he discuss ? Who are we ? He says, " we shall discuss our 
claim to be the church founded by Christ and his apostles, as 
an independent question, simply endeavoring to prove that the 
church, as episcopally constituted, is after the apostolic model, 
and that thus constituted, we have received it in a regular line 
of succession from the apostles themselves." It is evident that 
we are all those who belong to churches episcopally constitu- 
ted, and which claim to have the regular line of succession 
from the apostles. Now the only churches episcopally consti- 
tuted, and blessed, according to our author's view, with this regu- 
lar line of succession, are, besides his own, the Roman Catholic 
and the Greek. I must give him credit for speaking intelli- 
gently, and using language in accordance with his own theory. 
I am bound therefore to conclude, that when he announces for 
his thesis, " Our claim to the church," &c, he means the 
claim of us prelatists, of us Episcopalians, and Roman Catho- 
lics, and Greek christians. I know, that in his book, he says 
nothing directly of the other branches of the church; for, 
although he promises to discuss " Our claim to be the 
church " yet when he comes to his work, the proposition is 
curtailed of its large dimensions, and we have simply, " our 
own claims to be a true branch" &c. Instead of being a 
defense of " the church," his book turns out to be a defense, 
merely, of the Episcopal branch of it ; i. e. directly a defense 
of the Episcopal branch; though, in fact, seeing that it is 
an independent question in regard to churches episcopally 



14 THE CHURCH, 

constituted, a defense of the whole ; because it is on the 
episcopal constitution, and regular apostolical successk 
claimed, that the whole depends. 

If Mr. S. should say that I misrepresent him, I woulc 
to have him inform us in what particular. If I do not u 
stand him, the fault is his own. He should have written 
more perspicuity. But I do understand him, and I do no 
represent him. He means just what I say, that " the cht 
is composed of all those particular churches which hav 
episcopal constitution, and the so-called regular successi 
a line of bishops from the apostles, and that the Epi* 
church is a true branch, by virtue of its possessing thes€ 
grand qualifications. " Our claim to be the church " 1 
he proposes to discuss, is not " our claim " as Episcopalian 
"our claim," in common with Roman Catholics, and < 
christians, as prelatists, having the true succession, as is 
tained, from the apostles. Every thing in the question i 
he raises, is made to turn upon the episcopal constitution 
the so-called apostolical succession. Soundness in " the 
once delivered to the saints," is nothing. Purity of chi 
morals, whether in theory or in practice, is nothing. 
Greek church, with its downright heathenism, and the R 
Catholic church, with its mere shade, perhaps, of super] 
are veritable branches of the church of God ; while the 
tist, and Methodist, and Presbyterian, and other non-prel 
churches, with all their apostolic doctrine and spirit and L 
are mere societies of misguided men, wholly unowned, an 
authorized of Heaven. Mr. Schuyler believes this! D< 
believe it, my dear brother ? I can hardly persuade n 
that you are really in earnest. At least, I must think 
your honest, and I have no doubt, truly pious heart often 
pers its incredulity. To me, it is something strange and 
strous. — Mr. Schuyler, however, believes it. At any rate, 
part of his high-church creed, which he feels bound to i 
and to maintain. If neither his reason, nor his piety revc 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 15 

wonder that his pride does not ; for he needs not me to tell him 
that these pretensions of his church, are utterly repudiated by 
those into whose society she is so anxious to insinuate herself* 
Both these old harlots turn the back upon her. I can only say, 
she is welcome to such company if she likes it ; and above all, 
she is welcome to the deep disgrace of seeking to thrust herself 
into company that does not like her, and that makes itself 
merry at her ambitious aspirings. 

Our author's actual proposition is two-fold, as follows: 

The church is known by two grand and essential charac- 
teristics,-— an episcopal constitution, and a true succession, in 
a regular line of bishops, from the apostles. 

The Episcopal church is a true branch of the church, 
because, in common with the Greek and Roman Catholic 
churches, it bears these essential marks. 

We intend, in due course, to examine the arguments with 
which he seeks to establish this position. Something, however, 
is first to be said on another subject. 



THE INVISIBLE CHURCH. 

Our author, in opening the way to his main subject, makes a 
bold push at the notion of an invisible church, and endeavors 
to prove that the church can have no existence save a visible 
one, with visible forms, and a visible organization ; and that no 
one can be properly said to be of the church, or to have any 
share in the blessings promised thereto, who is not found within 
that visible pale. If it is his belief that all members of " the 
church " will be finally saved, and that none else will be, then 
I can see a reason for his zeal on this point, but not other- 
wise ; for I am not aware that the idea of an invisible church 
is in any way incompatible with that of a visible church, even 
of a true visible church, as opposed to all other visible organi- 
zations claiming to be churches, or branches of the church. 



16 THE CHURCH, 

We do not deny that Christ and his apostles organized a vii 
ble church, as our author has very fairly and fully shown fro 
our standards. We do not deny that there is a visible chur< 
in existence at the present time, and a true visible church 
opposed to false ones. We only deny that the true visit 
church exists under one name and without visible distinction 
and in this does not he agree with us ? Does not the true vi 
ble church, according to himself, consist of three differe 
branches, so separate, that for the most part, they wholly d 
own each other, with distinct names, and distinct organization 
In fact, the only difference between us on this subject, is, th 
he makes the true visible church consist of those church 
which, whatever their moral condition, and the state of chr 
tian doctrine in them may be, have an episcopal constitutic 
and the alledged apostolical succession in an unbroken line 
bishops; while we make it consist of those churches whi 
maintain the essential features of apostolic faith and practi 
He pleads for a visible church perpetuated by succession frc 
the apostles, in an unbroken line of bishops; we for a visit 
church, perpetuated by succession from the apostles in t 
spirit and truth and power of the Gospel which they preacht 
We yield to none, in respect and reverence for the extern 
visible church of God. Still, we believe with Paul, Roi 
ii: 28, 29, that " He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; n< 
ther is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh ; but 1 
is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of tl 
heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not 
men, but of God." We believe that the visible church has 
its bosom many who are really not Christ's disciples; and th 
there may be men, out of the bosom of the visible church, wt 
nevertheless, are truly and sincerely disciples of the Saviour, ai 
will be owned as such in the great day of account; for we s* 
still with the apostle, Rom. ii: 26, 27, "If the uncircumcisk 
keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcisk 
be counted for circumcision? and shall not uncircumcisio 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 17 

vhich is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the 
etter and circumcision dost transgress the law ? " As it was not 
iircumcision of the flesh, but of the heart, that under a former 
lispensation, made a man truly a member of the church, 
o, upon the same principle, it is not the outward washing of 
yater now, but the inward renewing of the Holy Ghost, the 
cashing of regeneration, that makes a man a true member of 
he church of God. Our idea, therefore, is, that the visible 
hurch does not truly express the church which is Christ's 
wdy, spoken of in Col. i: 18, "And he is the head of the 
)ody, the church." We believe that the church represented 
>y* outward organizations and forms, is only the apparent, and 
tot the real church spoken of where we read, Eph. v: 25—27, 
hat " Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, 
hat he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water, 
>y the word ; that he might present it to himself a glorious 
;hurch, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing : but 
hat it should be holy and without blemish." The church, as 
ve regard it, and we have never thought that we h^Id novel or 
)eculiar views, consists visibly of all those wno profess to be- 
ieve in Christ, and conform outwardly to his requirements: 
*eaRy it consists of all those who do believe in Christ, and who 
field a true spiritual obedience to his commands. We are 
compelled to believe in an invisible church, because the marks 
)f the true "church which is Christ's body," which he loved, 
and gave himself to redeem, and which his veracity is pledged 
to glorify, are invisible marks. 

These views Mr. Schuyler is pleased to stigmatize as new, 
and to represent as belonging exclusively to us. He says, page 
twelve : " But with the great majority of those who differ from 
us, at the present day, a new doctrine is in vogue, and we are 
told of an 'invisible church '— < that the true church does 
only consist of such men as have a title to God's favor, by their 
faith and other christian virtues,' " &c. If being found in the 
New Testament makes this doctrine new, then it is so. That it 
2 



18 THE CHURCH, 

is exclusively ours, is certainly a new idea. I might quote ar 
number of Episcopal authors, and the very best of them, wl 
express exactly the views which we hold. A single quotation 
will indulge in, from an author, whose high-church episcopac 
will not be called in question; I mean archdeacon Mannin 
of Chichester, England. I have before me a volume of 1 
sermons, printed in London, in 1844, dedicated " To the Rig 
Reverend Father in God, George, Lord Bishop of New Jersey 
that is to say, to bishop Doane. In the sermon entitle 
" God's Kingdom invisible" page 182, he says, in conne 
tion with more to the same effect : a As we may partake of tl 
water of baptism, or the bread and wine of the holy eucharis 
and yet have no part in the saving grace they bear to man, i 
may we partake of the holy catholic church, which to tl 
eyes of faith is visible in all lands under heaven, and yet ha^ 
no fellowship with the saints of Christ, seen or unseen — ivh 
that mystical body of Christ, which is the company of c 
faithful people — ivith the church of the first-born, tvho 
names are written in heaven" Add to this another passa^ 
found in the sermon, entitled, " The waiting of the invisib 
church; " on page 346 — " We must wait, and not be wear 
we must bear all the fretfulness and provocation of earth 
tempers and false tongues for a little season. Meanwhile, tl 
perpetual worship of our unseen Master, and the communic 
of hidden saints, and the fellowship of the invisible churc 
must be our strength and stay." This same archdeacc 
Manning, according to recent intelligence from England, 
regret to say, is among the many who have recently renounce 
the Episcopal church, and entered the Roman Catholic. 

It simply amazes me, that any person who has a tolerab] 
knowledge of the scriptures, should not have discovered i 
them the distinction which I have expressed. Pray, what 
that "church of the first-born, which is written in heaven, 
mentioned in Heb. xi: 23. Is it the church visible, coi 
sisting of all the baptized, and of none else ? Mr. Mannin 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 19 

says, it is "the mystical body of Christ, the company of all 
faithful people" So we believe. In the places that have been 
quoted from Colossi ans, and Ephesians, not to speak of others, 
the, term " church " can not be understood as referring to a 
visible, organized body, but must of necessity stand for the 
body of true spiritual believers, God's really redeemed and 
sanctified and chosen people. 

Mr. S. will admit that the visible church, truly and properly 
speaking, consists of all its visible members. If he makes the 
condition of actual membership to be sincerity of profession, 
then, since sincerity is an invisible grace, he loses his point, 
and the true church, according to himself, becomes invisible. 
Now, will he maintain that every member of the Episcopal 
church, to say nothing of the other branches of what he holds 
to be the church, is a real part of Christ's body? If Mr. S. 
believes this, then h^ believes that every member of the Epis- 
copal church will be saved; for so Paul teaches of all those 
who belong to this church. — Read the whole of the first chap- 
of Ephesians. — Does he believe it ? Then also, he believes 
that none but members, of what he calls the church, i. e. the 
church as a whole, consisting of its three branches, will be saved. 
Does he believe this ? 

" Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." Does 
the church here mean the visible body of professing chris- 
tians ; or does it mean the invisible company of true believers ? 

-" that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not 
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should 
be holy and without blemish." Is it the visible Church that 
is to be presented thus, composed of all its visible members; 
or is it " the church, which is Christ's body," composed of 
those, and only those who are joined to him by faith? If my. 
brother is in doubt as to what " the church " in this place 
means, let him ask himself, when, and where the presentation 
of it by Christ unto himself, of which the text speaks, is to take . 
place. His own reply will undoubtedly be, in another life, 



20 THE CHURCH, 

and in heaven. Then let him ask again, Who are the men 
that shall share in the glories and blessedness of that pre- 
sentation ? I am snre he will answer, — None but the true chil- 
dren of God the Father; none but those that shall be found 
to " have washed their robes, and made them ivhite in the blood 
of the Lamb" These then are the church; and is not the 
church, so regarded, invisible? Can any human being tell 
with certainty of whom it is composed ? 

I have already written more on this point than it deserves 
in this discussion. I have done so, out of deference to our 
author's apparently high sense of its importance. In regard to 
" the most harassing facts " of his " beloved Diocesan," — see his 
introductory lecture, page fifteen, — I have nothing to say. 
Who is harassed by them, I can not imagine. They are good 
facts to prove that our Saviour established a visible church, but 
what bearing they have upon the question of the church invis- 
ible, it surpasses my shrewdness to discover ; and, with all frank- 
ness, I must say the same of my friend's reasonings on this 
subject. Both he and his bishop seem entirely in the dark as 
to what is meant by the invisible church, and to have aimed 
their blows at something that was to them invisible indeed. 
Fortunately, however we may differ in regard to this question 
of the invisible church, we are perfectly agreed in believing 
that there is a visible church, and it is with that that we are at 
present concerned. 

THE MAIN QUESTIONS CONSIDERED. 

We could wish that our author had undertaken a logical 
discussion of the propositions which, not formally, but substan- 
tially as we have expressed them, he lays down at the outset. 
As he has not done so, we must, per force, follow him in the 
method which he has chosen. His argument is arranged under 
three heads — the church; the ministry of the church; and 
the apostolical succession of the church. 



ITS MINISTRY AOT) WORSHIP. 21 

THE CHURCH. 

Under this head we find almost nothing that seems to demand 
attention. We see very little toobject to, even in the definition, on 
page thirty-six ; and if it might be so modified as to convey the 
idea that the " visible society " which our author says the church 
is, is not necessarily a simple unit, but may exist in several 
separate and distinct branches, we would not hesitate to receive 
it as it stands. Nor do we think that he himself would object 
to such a modification, since he evidently regards the Episcopal 
church as being only a branch of the true church. We think 
he would hardly be willing to say that the Roman Catholic, and 
Greek, and Episcopal churches compose literally one society ; 
though he certainly believes that the church, as a whole, con- 
sists of these three. If he will insist upon his definition unmo- 
dified, then we have a question or two that we desire to propose 
to him. He says : 

" The Church is a visible society, founded by Christ and his 
apostles, composed of an unlimited number of members, pro- 
fessing allegiance to Christ as their invisible Head, acknowledg- 
ing a common faith, set forth in God's holy word, endowed 
with peculiar, covenanted privileges, and ruled by men deriv- 
ing their authority from Christ, with power to transmit that ^ 
authority to others." 

" The church is a visible society T Does our author then 
maintain that the Roman Catholic, and Greek, and Episcopal 
churches constitute " a visible society ? " By a society, we 
understand a union of any number of persons, having a com- 
mon object in view, and animated in regard to that object, with 
a common spirit. The ideas are involved, of partnership, and 
fellowship, and fraternity. By a visible society, we understand 
a society that has a visible bond of union, in which there is 
visible partnership, and fellowship, and fraternity. Now, we 
ask, what visible bond of union there is between the three 



22 THE CHURCH, 

branches of Mr. Schuyler's church ? At what points do the 
come together and cohere, so as to justify us in calling thei 
one? Does not each of them stand as truly by itself as thoug 
the others did not exist ? And where do we discover the visib' 
signs of partnership, of fellowship, of fraternity, among them 
Are they mutually represented in each other's councils an 
conventions ? Do they dismiss members from one to another 
Do their ministers exchange pulpits ? Do they love one anothe 
and treat one another with affectionate civility and courtesy ? I 
a word, do they stand up before the world as one great brothe 
hood in Christ ? Every one knows how these questions are i 
be answered. How then do they constitute a visible society 

But if they do not, all together, constitute a visible societ; 
which is the church; if on the contrary, like Jews an 
Samaritans, they " have no dealings," but mutually despise an 
anathematize each other, how then, upon Mr. Schuyler's prii 
ciples ? — is Christ divided i Alas, alas ! into what a wretche 
condition has his kingdom fallen, and how mournful are i 
prospects ! Our Saviour himself has taught us that " ever 
kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; an 
every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 
Changing the figure, it may be said that the body of Cnri* 
has fallen into hands more injurious than those of his mui 
derers, for they did show it some respect, and " not a bone ( 
him was broken ; " but now, we see it actually rent and tor 
asunder by those who profess to be his worshipers ; worse tha 
wounded, literally severed into parts, in the house of hi 
pretended friends. 

We also, describing the church, say, that it "is a visibl 
society," consisting of all those particular churches that hoi- 
the head, which is Christ, and the truth as it is in him. Froi: 
this visible society we believe the Romish and Greek churche 
have separated themselves, by an open apostacy from " the fait] 
once delivered to the saints," and that they are no longer c 
" the church," but are synagogues of Satan, antichrist, " tha 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 23 

wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his 
mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 
If Mr. Schuyler shall endeavor to retort upon me, by saying 
that the evidences of union are not very apparent between the 
different branches of the church, as I would compose it, I can 
only admonish him that his endeavor must be a very strenuous 
one to succeed in showing that there is not enough of real and 
acknowledged partnership, and fellowship, and fraternity, among 
the recognized evangelical denominations of christians, to meet 
the requisite conditions of a visible society. I own that there 
is less of true christian union among the churches than there 
ought to be. The lack of it is a cause of sincere and profound 
grief to all devout and Christ-loving men, but there is still 
union and sympathy, and a conscious identification and oneness 
pervading the entire body, however diversified may be its 
branches, and the names by which they are called. They all 
acknowledge a common end of toil and effort. They all feel 
and own that they have a common interest. They can, and do 
often come together and mingle as churches, in the most 
delightful fellowship, and they perform toward each other those 
acts which indicate and imply, that though divided, they are 
nevertheless one in Christ. If there is an exception to this, it 
must be said, and we say it with unaffected sorrow, that excep- 
tion is the Episcopal church. If there is the dreadful sin of 
schism any where, I know not at whose door it lies, if not at 
hers. I speak of the Episcopal church, as such. Very many 
Episcopalians I know, are as untainted with the schismatic 
spirit of exclusiveness and separatism, as I hope that I myself 
am. Their hearts beat freely in unison with the heart of the 
great christian world. They are glad to discover the image of 
Christ any where, and to acknowledge it, wherever they find it. 
Not as individual christians merely, but as churches, they are 
willing to meet and own those whom they recognize as true 
disciples of their Lord; and they can and do rejoice in their 
successes, and bid them God speed in their work of saving 



U THE CHURCH, 

souls and building up the kingdom. This however, can not h 
said of the Episcopal church ; and we sincerely mourn that i 
can not be. 

The only further exception that I wish to take against Mi 
Schuyler's remarks on the general subject of the church, i 
simply against the manner in which he has made them, — imply 
ing that he is giving expression to sentiments peculiarly Episcc 
palian. He becomes quite excited, and displays an immens 
amount of combativeness over points in regard to which I an 
not aware that there has ever been any dispute between Prela 
tists and Presbyterians. He waxes exceedingly valiant for th 
defense of positions, which no body dreams, or ever did drean 
of assailing. In his simplicity, did he really think that thes 
views are peculiar to Episcopalians ; or did he wish to strengthei 
his cause in the prejudices of his readers by imputing to us 
denial of them ? 

Immediately after giving his definition of the church, Mi 
Schuyler says : " you will observe, my brethren, I have use< 
the term, ' the church,' instead of ' a church,' because it is th 
only scriptural way of speaking." He then proceeds to sIkts 
that what he says is really so, and that to say " the church 
and not " a church," is the way to speak according to th 
scriptures. It is implied, of course, that Presbyterians do no 
speak so, and people are left to draw their own inferences as t 
how corrupt the Presbyterian theory, in regard to the enure! 
must have become, when they do not even speak the word in , 
scriptural manner. But is it so ? Do not we Presbyterians sa 
" the church ? " We always do, except when the grammatica 
construction of the sentence in which the word occurs, or som< 
other equally important consideration, requires a change in th 
form of expression. Why Mr. S. should object to saying " \ 
church," when it is a church, and not the church, of which he i 
speaking, I can not imagine, especially since he himself ha 
quoted a text in which the expression " a church" is used. Thai 
I should think, would settle forever the propriety of saying " ; 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 25 

church" as often as it is supposed the sense to be expressed 
requires that mode of speech. We always say u the church " 
when we have reference to the great universal body of Christ's 
believing people. For example, we say ? God loves the 
church, and will defend it against all its adversaries." We 
always use the same form of expression when we speak of the 
entire body of christians within any given limits; as in the 
following cases : a The church of God in America," or " the 
church in the Sandwich Islands," or " the church in Buffalo." 
W^hen I, in my own pulpit, invite a meeting of the members of 
my own church at any particular time and place, I say, there 
will be a meeting of " the church," &c, &c. 

In such a case as the following, we say, a church : " It 
is a question to be considered whether the Roman Catholics 
can proiperly be regarded as constituting a church of 
Christ." The propriety of this, I presume, will not be 
objected to, 

There is still another way of using the word " church." We 
believe the church as a whole, consists of several distinct 
branches. When we speak of any particular branch of the 
church, we deem it important to use a term that shall specify 
which branch of the church we mean. If it is our own 
branch that we refer to, w T e always say, "the Presbyterian 
church," unless there is something in the immediate connection, 
or in the circumstances of the time and the occasion, that makes 
our meaning sufficiently obvious without the use of the specify- 
ing adjective. So also, we say, " the Methodist church," " the 
Baptist church," " the Episcopal church." We think it would 
be positively incorrect in style, speaking in general terms, to call 
the Presbyterian church, " the church," to say nothing of the 
seeming arrogance of such a mode of speech. My brother 
Schuyler in giving a general definition of the church, could 
hardly have used a different form of expression from that which 
he did use ; but I know not how he can justify the almost uni- 
versal practice of himself and his brethren, of calling their own 



26 THE CHURCH, 

little branch of the church, in a general term, " the church," i 
though it were the whole church. 

For an example, let me refer the reader to a passage in h 
preface : " Under these circumstances, the author considered 
his duty to improve the opportunity, in using his poor abiliti< 
in behalf of the church." Now, if he claimed that the En^ 
lish Episcopal church is the only and the entire church, th 
would certainly be, for him, a proper mode of speaking ; but a 
that he claims for her is, that she is " a true branch of the apo 
tolical church." How, then, is it either correct in style, < 
decent on other grounds, for him in such a case as this, to ca 
the English Episcopal church "the church?" But enoug 
of this. 

Again, in this immediate connection, page thirty-seven, o\ 
author says, — " That the church is a visible society, is plain] 
recognized in the bible. Thus w r e find such expressions i 
these," &c. He had previously combatted our idea, as r 
understands it, of the invisible church, and now he makes tl 
existence of a visible church a proposition, and enters zealous] 
upon the proof of it. Of course the idea is implied that v> 
Presbyterians do not believe in a visible church ! 

Again, page thirty-eight, — u That the church is not 
voluntary society, we have met, in our definition, with the asse 
tion that it was founded by Christ and his apostles and endowe 
with peculiar covenanted privileges." It is implied, of cours 
that we Presbyterians do not believe that Christ and his apo; 
ties founded or instituted a church, but that we hold tb 
church to be a voluntary society, that is, a society constitute 
by men, in such form as is pleasing to them, without an 
special authority from the Saviour, or from those whom la 
appointed to set in order the things of his kingdom ! 

One of the most devout of my brother's parishioners, o 
coming out of his church, at the close of the service at whic 
this lecture was delivered, was heard to say, — indeed, she sai 
it to a member of my own church, — " Only to think, that an 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 27 

body should pretend that Christ and his apostles left the world 
without ever forming a church ! Is n't it absurd ? I do not 
know how some people read their bibles." She had evidently 
received the impression from her rector's preaching, that Pres- 
byterians do not believe that Christ and his apostles constituted 
and left behind them a church ! — but, that they just instructed 
men in the principles of the Gospel, and the general theory of 
religion, and left them to form churches for themselves accord- 
ing to their various fancies ! 

Need I say again, that we believe in the external, visible 
church of God, the church of all ages ? Need I say that, as 
Presbyterians, we believe in the visible church of the Redeemer, 
the church of God reconstructed by Christ and his apostles, 
destined to stand as long as the world stands ? We have no 
controversy with our Episcopal brethren on this point. Here, 
as to the great fact involved, they and we are perfectly agreed. 
Still, as I have already intimated, we do not believe that Christ 
and his apostles instituted and organized the visible christian 
church in such a manner as to impress upon it in all its extent, 
and through all time, a visible external oneness. That is, they 
did not so settle and define all the minutia and details of eccle- 
siastical form and order, as to forbid the idea that the church 
might exist in separated parts, separated by minor and unes- 
sential differences of faith and practice, yet united in all main 
respects, and one in spirit and in aims; separated in modes 
of action, yet united in the " one hope of their calling," having 
" one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through all, and in all." For the proof 
of this, it is quite enough to refer to the fact, apparent to every 
reader of the bible, that there is no complete and finished order 
of ecclesiastical form and government there prescribed. The 
great and essential features of the christian church are clearly 
and indubitably set forth, so that no man can mistake them, 
but, farther than this, nothing is determined. Now, if it had 
been our Lord's intention that his visible church should maintain 



S8 THE CHURCH, 

through all time, that absolute external oneness for wirier. 
Roman Catholics contend, and for which Episcopalians seen, 
sometimes to be equally earnest, but the principle of which the) 
clearly give up, when they call themselves " a branch of th( 
apostolical church," we maintain that his own instructions 
and those of his apostles on this subject, laid down in " the onl) 
rule of faith and practice," would have been specific, and definite 
and full. We maintain, that the New Testament would have 
contained as careful, and minute, and perfect a description o: 
the christian church, its ministry and worship, as is found in th< 
Old Testament, of the Jewish church, with its ministry anc 
worship. My readers all know how, under the former dispen- 
sation, when it was the divine intention that the church shoulc 
exist with a visible external oneness, this subject was treated 
even to the hem of the priest's garments and the " pots in th( 
Lord's house," specific directions were afforded. We say, thai 
if there had been a similar intention in regard to the christian 
church, there would have been a similar minuteness of specifi- 
cation concerning every thing that was to belong to it ; and 
from the utter absence of any such minute specification, w£ 
infer that there was no such intention. 

I will conclude under this head, by quoting from our confes- 
sion of faith, what expresses substantially the views of all 
Presbyterians on this subject. 

Chap, xxv : Sec. 1. The catholic or universal church, which 
is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have 
been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head 
thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that 
filleth all in all. 

Sec. 2. The visible church, which is also catholic or uni- 
versal under the Gospel, (not confined to one nation as before, 
under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world that 
profess the true religion, together with their children ; and is 
the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of 
God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 29 

Sec. 4. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, 
sometimes less visible; and particular churches, which are 
members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doc- 
trine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances admin- 
istered, and public worship performed more or less purely in 
them. 

Sec. 5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both 
to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to 
become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nev- 
ertheless, there shall be always a church on earth to worship 
God according to his will. 



THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH. 

At the bottom of page thirty-eight, and the top of page 
thirty-nine, our author says, having stated his views on the 
general subject of the church, "In this church — or over this 
society, thus visibly separated from the world, and blessed with 
the promise of peculiar privileges, — the head of the church 
placed certain officers, with authority to rule and govern it, and 
with power also to transmit their authority to others." 

The proposition thus laid down, he proceeds to argue at 
considerable length, and tenaciously to defend, as though it 
were a matter in dispute between us. He quotes from our 
own church standards, and from our authors, passages which 
contain his own doctrine, and glories over his quotations as if 
he had obtained concessions from an enemy. In spite of all 
Presbyterian authorities, with which he seems not to be unfa- 
miliar, he will have it, that as we do not believe in a divinely 
constituted church, so neither do we believe in a divinely 
appointed ministry. 

The Presbyterian belief on the subject now introduced, is 
truly expressed by the quotation which Mr. Schuyler makes from 
our confession of faith. I give the quotation with explanatory 



30 THE CHURCH, 

parentheses: "The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head 
of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in th( 
hands of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate 
To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven (tha 
is, of the church,) are committed, by virtue whereof, thej 
have power respectively to retain and remit sins, (that is, t( 
pronounce the unchangeable conditions on which God wil 
retain or remit sins,) to shut that kingdom (that is, th< 
church) against the impenitent, both by the word, and b} 
censures ; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministr} 
of the Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasioi 
shall require." — Confession of Faith, chapter xxx. 

I may also quote on the same point, from chapter xxv. o: 
the confession of faith, section 3 : " Unto this catholic visibk 
church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinance! 
of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in thii 
life, to the end of the world : and doth by his own present 
and spirit, according to his promise, make them effectua 
thereunto." 

We then do believe, just as really as Episcopalians, that " th< 
head of the church hath placed in the church certain officer! 
with authority to rule and govern it." This is no peculiai 
doctrine of theirs, but is our doctrine also. 

Neither is it a peculiar doctrine of theirs, that the officers 
whom Christ placed in the church, besides the authority whicl: 
they had to rule and govern it, had the " power also to transmr 
their authority to others." 

The Presbyterian belief in regard to the manner of succeed- 
ing to the christian ministry, I can not better state than in the 
words of Dr. McLeod and of Dr. Mason, as also quoted ir 
substance by our author. Dr. Mc Leod says : 

"A person who is not ordained to office by a Presby- 
tery, has no right to be received as a minister of Christ 
his administration of ordinances is invalid : no divine blessing is 
promised upon his labors : it is rebellion against the head of the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 31 

church to support him in his pretensions : Christ has excluded 
him in his providence from admission through the ordinary 
door, and if he has no evidence of miraculous power to testify 
his extraordinary mission, he is an impostor." 

What value is to be attached to Mr. Schuyler's comparison 
of this, with the Episcopal doctrine concerning the indispensa- 
ble necessity of the imposition of a prelatic bishop's hands to 
give validity to an ordination, as indicating equal " illiberality," 
" bigotry," and " uncharitableness," may be easily ascertained by 
inquiring what the word " presbytery " means. Mr. Schuyler 
either ignorantly thinks, or else artfully designs, that his readers 
shall think, that by " a presbytery " in the place quoted, is 
meant the particular judicatory of the Presbyterian church 
which bears that name, and to which, according to the consti- 
tution of our church, the power of ordination among us belongs. 
Thus he either thinks, or would have others think, that Dr. 
McLeod denied the validity of all ordinations out of the Presby- 
terian church, whether occurring among Episcopalians or Bap- 
tists, or Methodists, or whomsoever. Now the truth is, that by " a 
presbytery " Dr, McLeod meant only a plurality of presbyters, 
of duly ordained ministers, of whatever christian denomination ; 
so that he neither denied, nor intended to deny, the validity of 
ordinations in other churches, where two or more ministers con- 
cur in the act We certainly do allow the validity of episcopal 
ordinations, not however, because of any authority in the bishop 
as such, but because we recognize him as a presbyter, and as 
constituting, with the presbyters who unite with him in laying 
on hands upon the candidate, a lawful presbytery. 

We entirely approve of Dr. McLeod's statement, and I do 
not know the Presbyterian who would object to it. There is a 
regular and orderly way appointed by the head of the church for 
coming into the christian ministry — by presbyterial ordination, 
i. e. by the ordaining act of two or more previously-ordained 
christian ministers. This is the door, and " He that entereth 
riot by the door^ but climbeth up some other way, the same is 



32 THE CHURCH, 

a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door, k 
the Bhepherd of the sheep" 

The quotations from Dr. Mason, which we also give ai 
expressive of our own sentiments, and of the sentiments oi 
Presbyterians generally, are as follows: 

" It is undeniable that from the time God set up his church 
in her organized form, until the christian dispensation, there 
was an order of men consecrated by his own appointment, to 
the exclusive work of directing her worship, and presiding over 
her interests; insomuch, that no one, but one of themselves, not 
even a crowned head, might meddle with their functions, nor 
undertake in any way, to be a teacher of religion, without an 
immediate call from heaven, attested by miraculous evidence" 
Again, " Our Lord Jesus delivered their commission to his 
apostles, in terms which necessarily implied a perpetual and 

REGULARLY SUCCESSIVE MINISTRY." 

Not regarding the danger of being charged with some degree 
of egotism, I will even quote from myself, in a sermon which I 
] »r< ached and published several years ago. Not having a printed 
copy of that sermon at hand, J must be allowed to quote from 
a manuscript, which I am quite sure differs in no important 
"in the printed copy. 

The sermon was founded on 2 Cor. v: 20, and the points 
discussed, were— the authority, the dignity, and the business of 
the ministerial office, In regard to the authority of the minis- 
terial office, I said, 

11 jl f«ta on a divine commission. God 'hath committed 
onto us the word of recondEatioih Now then we are embassa- 
dors for Christ; 1 we, not you; not any and every man who 

may ch to arrogate to himself the functions of this high 

office, but we, to whom it lias h,vii committed of God. It may 
, "' observed then, thai there is a das., of men in the world, 
exclusively authorised to preach the gospel. It will not be 
«ed that the text, in its connection, does teach, that this 
exdusii e authority was given to Paul and his associates. < The 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 33 

word of reconciliation' in the commencement of the new 
dispensation, was committed to them, and not to others, They 
were, in a peculiar manner, called and consecrated thereto, so 
that whether regarded as a privilege or a duty, the work of the 
ministry appertained to them, in distinction from all others then 
living in the world. 

" But these first ministers of Christ were to have successors in 
the ministry. In their official character, they were never to die. 
This sufficiently appears from the last charge, with the accom- 
panying promise, which they received from the Saviour just 
previous to his ascension : * Go ye therefore and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and lo ! I am with you always, 
even unto the end of the world.' This charge and promise 
could not have terminated on them personally. They were 
evidently addressed in their official character, as representing a 
long line of successors in the same office, which was to be 
perpetuated to the end of time. The language is not intelli- 
gible on any other supposition. There is then, of course, now 
in the world, a class of men holding the same exclusive commis- 
sion which was given to the first apostles." 

In commenting on the last quotation from Dr. Mason, 
Mr. Schuyler says, page forty-six, " No assertion can be more 
clear or decisive as to the absolute necessity of the apostolic 
succession to the valid exercise of ministerial authority." Let 
our brother now lay it up in his memory, so that it shall never 
slip, that we Presbyterians do believe in an apostolical succes- 
sion. We do not believe in the apostolical succession of the 
Episcopal, or Greek, or Romish churches, in an unbroken line 
of prelatic bishops, but we believe in the true succession from 
the apostles of all true ministers of Christ. We believe in " a 
perpetual and regularly successive ministry," the line of which, 
in the christian church, began with the apostles. 

" The question now comes up," says our author, and he states 
it so fairly, that I am quite willing he should state it for us 
3* 



M THE CHURCH, 

both --The question now comes up, who are the successors o: 
the apostles; and who, therefore, are duly empowered to conte: 
theniinisterial commission? The determination of tins quest.o, 
rests upon the decision of the issue between two systems, epis 
copacy, and parity, or the presbyterian mmistry; and b; 
presbyterian, we mean all those who hold to but one orde 
in the ministry. 

« The advocates of episcopacy declare that there are thre 
orders in the ministry, styled, since the days of the apostle 
bishops, priests, and deacons, of whom the highest grade, c 
bishops alone, have the power to ordain. The advocates of parit; 
or equality in the ministry, declare that there is but one orde 
and that all in this order have equal rights. 

" Let us then," proceeds our author, " bring the question < 
parity or imparity, equality or inequality, in the orders of tl 
ministry, to the test of scripture." 

It is to the test of scripture, that we Presbyterians deligl. 

above all things, to bring this debated question. We do not refu 

to discuss it before any other tribunal. "When our opponen 

appeal from scripture to the fathers, we are most happy to { 

with them to the fathers. When they appeal again to genei 

history, we are just as ready to meet them there. B 

pre have always felt that this is a question which the scri 

tares, and the scriptures alone, are fully competent to deck 

\\ V acknowledge no other "rule of faith and practice" t 

them; and, therefore^ the word with us, always has been — " 

the law and to tin 1 testimony." Mr. Schuyler and myself £ 

now to meet each other in the court of scripture. Will 

abide the decision <>f the court? 

The determination, be says, of the question, "who are t 

successor* of the apostles? rests upon the decision of the iss 

two systems, episcopacy and parity" 

Th. .in. -linn fn-st to be considered, then, relates to the gene 

subject of the ministry. Does it consist, by divine appointme 

of three orders, oafl*d bishops, priests, and deacons, with 1 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 35 

authority to ordain ministers, vested solely in the firsts or is it 
of one order, commonly, in the scriptures, called presbyters, or 
bishops, all of whom are equal in authority ? 



FIRST SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR EPISCOPACY 

THREE ORDERS IN THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD. 

The argument is thus stated by our author, on page forty- 
seven : " As the law given by Moses was a shadow of good things 
to come, typifying the gospel dispensation, the constitution of the 
Aaronic priesthood, would justify the presumption, at least, that 
the christian ministry would be after this pattern. We find in the 
Jewish church three distinct orders of ministers — the high priest, 
the priest, and Levite. This fact, therefore, might reasonably 
lead us to expect the like number of grades in the ministry of 
the christian church." 

The fact, of course, is admitted, that the Jewish priesthood 
was of. three orders. The question, therefore, is, whether this 
fact furnishes, as our author supposes it does, any ground of 
presumption in favor of a similar arrangement for the ministry 
of the christian church. The ground of presumption, according 
to his statement, and his statement is like that of all Episcopal 
writers, lies in the typical character of the Mosaic system, and 
the assumed conclusion that the Jewish priesthood was typical 
of the christian ministry. 

In regard to the typical character of the Jewish system there 
is no dispute. We are expressly told, that " the law had a 
shadow of good things to come." But the assumed conclusion 
of Episcopalians, that the Jewish priesthood was typical of the 
christian ministry, is without foundation, and contrary both to 
the facts in the case, and to scripture. 

The important facts in the case are two : First, The Jewish 
priesthood did not resemble any existing ministry of any so-called 



36 THE CHURCH, 

christian church. If it was a type, or foreshadowing, as is 
claimed, of the christian ministry, it has failed. It will not of 
course be pretended, that the ministry of the Romish church 
with its grades many, consisting of I know not what all, sub- 
deacons, deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and a pope, was 
typified by the Jewish priesthood. For a similar reason, it will 
not be pretended that the ministry of the Greek church was 
typified by that of the Jewish. How stands the case with the 
Episcopal church in England, with its earthly head seated upon 
the throne, and its primate, its archbishops, its bishops, its 
priests, its archdeacons, its deacons, etc., etc. ? It may be said, 
however, that the actual grades of the ministry in the church 
of England are only three, and that all above bishops, are still 
mere bishops, appointed to the discharge, not of higher minis- 
terial duties, but of higher governmental functions. Take, then, 
tli- Episcopal church as it exists in this country, with its three 
simple orders, of bishops, priests, and deacons. Now suppose 
the shadow of this ministry to be cast back into the ancient 
times of Jewry, and there let us search for it. We find the 
clear Bhadows of many things that we recognise as actual sub- 
stances of our own more happy dispensation, and at first, we 
may almost imagine that we see the shadow of this threefold 
ministry in the ministry of the Jewish church. The many 
Levites may pass for the shadow of the many deacons; the 
man] Jewish priests may pass for the shadow of the many 
episcopal priests; bul here the correspondence ceases; the one 



« h P ne8t ' ■'" " (>t be the shadow of the many episcopal 
bishops. A plurality of substances must have a plurality of 
Bhadows. ()...• firs! impression, therefore, was not well founded; 
••""1 'I'- Jewish priesthood is not the shadow of the episcopal 
christian ministry. 1 grant, that a shadow is a very different 
flung from a substance; and we are not to expect a perfect 
ooirespondence in all things; we are not to expect that it will be 
ponderable, for example; but we are nevertheless to expect a 
ocwwpondenoe, such as that which shadows always bear to the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 37 

substances which cast them. It is claimed, in order to get the 
ground of presumption of which our author speaks, that the 
Jewish high priest was a type or shadow of the order of bishops 
in the christian church. We reply that the resemblance is not 
adequate to sustain the claim. One could not be the type or 
shadow of many. No, our opponents may say, we do not claim 
that; but simply that the tripartite form of the Jewish priest- 
hood was a type or shadow of the tripartite form of the 
christian ministry. That is, they claim, not that the one min- 
istry was a type of the other, but that a mere accident, or 
quality of the one, was the type of a mere accident or quality 
of the other. This is absurd, for if the one ministry was not 
itself the type of the other, by what right, or by what sugges- 
tion even, do they look in it for typical accidents or qualities ? 
They might as well, in such a case, infer the tripartite form of 
the christian ministry from the triune existence of God, or from 
the threefold nature of any subject whatever. 

The second important fact to be considered, showing that the 
Jewish priesthood could not have been a type of the christian 
ministry, is the entire unlikeness of the business or work of one, 
to that of the other. The Jewish priesthood ministered at the 
altar of sacrifice ; their ministry consisted in offering sacrifices 
and burnt offerings unto God, for themselves and for the people. 
That they preached, we never read. Their whole work, in what 
was properly the ministry of religion, had respect more or less 
directly to the offering of sacrifices. The Levites were subor- 
dinate assistants of the priests in this work ; and to the high 
priest, who had the supreme administration of sacred things, 
appertained the duty, above all, of entering once a year into 
the most holy place " to make atonement for himself, and for 
his household, and for all the congregation of Israel." 

The business of the christian ministry is epitomized in the 
command " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature." And again; " Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 



38 THE CHURCH, 

Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." 

Now it is quite enough to submit the question to any un- 
biassed mind, whether such a ministry as that which existed in 
the Jewish church, could be typical of that which exists in the 
church of Christ ? To say nothing of the want of resemblance 
in other respects, there is none whatever in the business of the 
one to the business of the other. So far as this is concerned, it 
might just as well be said, that the Jewish king, with his chiei 
ministers and next subordinate officers in the government, were 
typical of the christian ministry. 

But the scriptures settle this question, by distinctly apprising 
us that the Jewish priesthood was typical of Christ, not as to its 
grades and threefold character, but as to its work. This ques- 
tion on scriptural grounds is settled definitely by the following 
passage: Heb. x: 1-7, "For the law having a shadow oi 
good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can 
never with those sacrifices which they offered, year by year, 
continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then 
would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the 
worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience oJ 
sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again 
made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood 
of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he 
(t. c Christ,) cdmeth into the world, he saith, sacrifices and offer- 
ing thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In 
burnt offerings and sacrifices for sins thou hast had no pleasure, 
Tli. n sai.l I, 1<», 1 come (in the volume of the book, it is written 
of me) to do thy will, God." 

It' it is Baid, that this teaches that the sacrifices offered undei 

the former dispensation were typical of Christ, I reply no; 

the sacrifices offered under the former dispensation were typi- 
cal erf Christ's body. "When he, that is, Christ, cometh into 
the world, he saith, sacrifices and offerings thou wouldest not, 
l.ut i body hast thou prepared me." The body of Christ which 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 39 

he offered upon the cross was the antitype of bulls and goate 
offered under the law, whose blood could never take away sins. 
Christ himself was the priest, the offerer, and he was the anti- 
type of the ancient offerer of bulls and goats. If it is insisted 
that the ancient sacrifices were typical of Christ himself, the 
third person in the Godhead, in his work of redemption, then 
we still affirm that the offerers of those ancient sacrifices were 
typical also of him ; for, if himself was the offering, himself also 
was the priestly offerer. — See Heb. vii : 27 — " Who needeth 
not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his 
own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did once, when 
he offered up himself." 

If it shall be said that only the high priest was a type of 
Christ, then, in that case, we ask what becomes of the ancient 
type of episcopal bishops ? It may possibly be said, with some 
show of reason, that the high priest was the especial type of 
Christ's person; but as to his work, it must still be admitted 
that the wdiole Jewish priesthood, whose business it was to 
offer sacrifices, was typical of him; and typical of none but 
him, unless you adopt the absurdities of the Romish church 
respecting the sacrifice of the mass. 

Other scriptures, besides those which I have quoted, might 
be adduced, equally in point, to show that in the person and 
work of Jesus Christ, the whole antitype is found of the 
priesthood in the Mosaic system, but it is needless. 

Now what becomes of Mr. Schuyler's ground of presump- 
tion ; — of his basis in the Jewish priesthood, of a reasonable 
expectation that there should be three grades or ranks in the 
ministry of the christian church ? The Jewish priesthood was 
not typical, or figurative, in any sense, of the christian ministry. 
Nothing, therefore, respecting the latter, can be inferred from 
the former. 

With Jesus Christ, who hath obtained "an unchangeable 
priesthood," being " a priest forever after the order of Melchis- 
edek," the entire order of an earthly priesthood has passed 



40 THE CHURCH, 

away. Priests, the work of whose office was to offer sacrifices, 
there are no more; — save him who with his "one sacrifice -of 
himself," " offered once for all," is " entered not into the holy 
places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but 
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
The ministry in the church of God now, is another thing. In 
tliis dispensation of the gospel, it is a ministry, not of blood, 
but of " the word of reconciliation," — a ministry of grace and 
salvation to dying men, by preaching, by proclaiming to them 
the glorious messages of divine love and mercy through the 
cross. What has this ministry to do with the ministry of the 
law of Moses? 

I have deemed it necessary to be somewhat full in my reply 
to this argument ; not because the argument is really important, 
or because intelligent Episcopalians lay much stress upon it, 
but because it is in a high degree sophistical and specious, and 
has great weight with ordinary minds. 



THE SECOND SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR 
EPISCOPACY. 

THE CONSECRATION OF CHRIST, AND HIS ORDINATION OF THE 
TWELVE AND OF THE SEVENTY. 

Mr. Schuyler having stated his ground of presumption for 
three orders in die christian ministry, which we have shown to 
be do ground of presumption, thus proceeds, page forty-seven: 

M This fact, therefore, mighl reasonably lead us to expect the 
like number of grades in the ministry of the christian church. 
Hence, we And, in looking into the gospel history, that such 
NN;i ^ ,l "" ' '^- AAerouT Saviour had arrived at the properage, 
aooording to the Jewish law, to enter upon the duties of the 
ministry, we bave the record of his visible consecration to this 
holj office, Immediately after his baptism, he is anointed by 
Am Holy Ghost; while the eternal father acknowledges his 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 41 

authority, saying, " This is my beloved son, in whom I am well 
pleased." 

Passing by, for the present, a quotation here introduced 
from archbishop Potter, I proceed, giving the words of our 
author — 

" Here then, we have the history of the inauguration of our 
blessed Saviour into the office of his earthly ministry, by a 
visible consecration, attested by a voice from heaven. In the 
order of the narrative, after this solemn consecration, and after he 
had been prepared, as man, by fasting, and by forty days of 
temptation in the wilderness, to enter upon his ministry and to 
lay the foundation of his spiritual kingdom, we are told, ' He 
chose twelve disciples/ and after a whole night spent upon the 
mountain in prayer, * He ordained twelve that they should be 
with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.' And 
here we would remark, that on two other distinct occasions, the 
ministerial powers of the apostles were enlarged by the Saviour, 
thus taking them up step by step. And sometime after this, we 
read, our Lord appointed seventy disciples, and sent them forth 
to preach and prepare the way for himself and the apostles, 

" Here then we have, while our blessed Lord was upon earth, 
three distinct orders in the ministry. The Great High Priest 
of our profession, the twelve apostles, and the seventy disciples. 
I know it is confidently asked in this stage of the church's 
history," — Dr. Thompson's sermon, page sixteen — "'will you 
find here any traces of a prelatic order exercising authority 
over two other orders ? ' What — I would ask in return, — was 
the office which our Lord himself held ? Was it not that of a 
prelatic or preferred order, exercising authority over the twelve 
apostles, and the seventy disciples ? Have we not, by the one 
question, satisfactorily answered the other ? " 

Perhaps, my dear brother, you have by the one question 
answered the other, satisfactorily to your mind; but to my 
mind, and I will venture to say to the minds of your thoughtful 
readers without an exception, you have not answered the other 



42 THE CHURCH, 

question at all. To my question, " Will you find here an 
trace of a prelatic order, exercising authority over two oth< 
orders ? " you reply, " What, I would ask in return, was the offi< 
which our Lord himself held ? was it not that of a prelatic, < 
preferred order ? " &c, &c. You affirm, then, that Christ w; 
a minister, in that sense of the word which it bears in o\ 
present discussion ! You affirm that Christ held " the office - 
of a prelatic, or preferred order," in the ministry of his ovt 
church ! What proof have you given of this ? None at a 
except your narration of his baptism, and the solemn testimon; 
on that occasion, of the voice from heaven, saying, " This is m 
beloved son, in whom I am well pleased," — which you call h 
" inauguration into the office of his earthly ministry, by 
visible consecration." You assume that "the office of h 
earthly ministry " was the ordinary office of a minister in h 
own church. Let me refer you, for instruction, and I ai 
inclined to add, reproof, to your own quotation on this vei 
point, from archbishop Potter. The archbishop says, referrin 
to the same baptismal scene — " This was a solemn inaugurt 
Hon to his office; for the more full understanding whereof, 
may be remembered, that under the Jewish economy, the king 
priests, and prophets were inaugurated to their several office 
by unction, and when the person appointed to succeed in an 
of these offices, had no approved right to it by lineal descen 
or otherwise, his designation was commonly declared by sona 
of the prophets : as appears from the examples of Saul, Davi( 
Jehu, Aaron, and Elisha. Answerable to this custom, ou 
blessed Saviour's designation to his mediatorial office, in whic 
all the three for ementioned offices of king, priest, and propht 
are contained, was not only attested by John the Baptist, th 
greatest of all the prophets, but by the voice of God himsel 
speaking from heaven." 

What, then, according to archbishop Potter, your own ai] 
thority, was the office to which Christ was consecrated by bar. 
tism ? You say, it was to "the office of a prelatic order " i 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 43 

the ministry of his own church. The archbishop says, it was 
" to his mediatorial office." Are the two offices identical ? Now 
the archbishop was right. Christ was formally consecrated by 
baptism and the voice from heaven to his great work as atoning 
priest and saviour of his people. He was visibly assuming that 
" unchangeable priesthood," which was shadowed forth in the 
priesthood of the Jewish economy, and it became him for the 
fulfillment of all righteousness to be set apart thereto by august 
rites and ceremonies; therefore he came to John, who was 
commissioned of God to bear witness of him, and was baptized. 

That same office into which Christ was formally inaugurated 
at his baptism, he sustains now. If it was " the office of a pre- 
latic order " in the ministry of his own church, then he sustains 
now " the office of a prelatic order " in the ministry of his own 
shurch ; and he whom we are taught to regard as " head over 
all things to the church," is a minister in it. Then, also, unless 
bishops are Christ's equals, in the ministry of the church, — ■ for 
it is a doctrine of our opponents, that all bishops are equal in 
the grade of their ministry, — there are four instead of three 
orders of ministers in the church. 

Sir, I must admonish you that in your zeal to find, at this 
Doint of gospel history, "traces of a prelatic order," you are 
making fearful liberties with the character and official work of 
him whom I know you venerate, not as a minister in the 
church of which you also are a minister, but as its head and 
Lord ; and that, instead of confirming your argument, you are 
listurbing its very foundations. 

My brother's argument, which I am now considering, pro- 
ceeds upon the bare assumption of two other facts. First, he 
•ssumes that the christian church had an existence at the time 
vhen the events referred to in his argument transpired. Now, 
F it could be proved that at this time the church of the new 
lispensation had not yet begun to exist, then of course, not only 
vas Christ no minister in it, but neither were the twelve or the 
eventy ministers in '% and there is no argument whatever, save 



44 THE CHURCH, 

a mere presumptive one, of the same general character with that 
which has already been disposed of, to be constructed from the 
comparative dignity of the three parties referred to, be it what 
it might be. Mr. Schuyler himself says in a note, in which, 
indeed, he gives up the whole argument as worthless, — " we 
conceive it, however, to be a matter of minor importance, whe- 
ther the distinction of the three orders is as clearly marked here, 
as in the subsequent history. The church was evidently (if 
I may use the expression) in a transition state, and was not 
fully organized until sometime after this? 1 The church in a 
transition state ! What kind of a state was that ? In one sense 
the church of God has always been in a transition state, and 
will always be, until it shall become " a glorious church, not 
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; " but in no other 
sense can I conceive of it as being in a transition state. The 
christian church either existed, or it did not, at the time when 
our Lord called and ordained the twelve and the seventy. If 
it did not exist, then, in the state of things at that time, nothing 
can be gathered to indicate what its character was to be ; much 
less can the facts of that time be reasoned about as if they ap- 
pertained to the very church itself and characterized it. The 
new dispensation, it is supposed by some, began when the vail 
of the temple was rent at the crucifixion of our Lord, when he 
cried out "It is finished, and bowed his head and gave up the 
ghost." Others suppose it began at his resurrection; and 
others, at the giving of the spirit on the day of Pentecost. 
Whenever the new dispensation began, then the Jewish church 
ceased to be a church, and the church of the Redeemer com- 
menced its existence. Now it was important, certainly, if Mr. 
Schuyler would make use of facts existing at an earlier date 
foan either of the dates which I have mentioned, as character- 
izing the christian church, that he should at least show us that 
the christian church was in being at that time. 

The other fact, essential to my brother's argument, (upon 
which indeed, like that of Christ's being a minister, holding 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 45 

* the office of a prelatic order" his argument is founded,) which 
he has assumed without proof, is, that the seventy, hi the office 
which our Lord assigned to them preparatory to the introduc- 
tion of his kingdom, and the setting up of his church, were 
inferior to the twelve. That the twelve were designed, ultimately, 
to occupy a peculiar and superior position ; that the Saviour 
intended to employ them, when his kingdom should be set up, in 
an office of peculiar and eminent importance and dignity, no one, 
I presume, feels any inclination to deny. Hence, he appointed 
them to be " with him," to be, as it were, members of his own 
family, that he might instruct them, and in various ways train 
them for that future service which they were destined to perform, 
and that they might be witnesses to the world after his death, 
of what he said, and did, and suffered. But, as to their grade of 
office prior to the setting up of the kingdom, at the time when 
in this argument, Mr. Schuyler finds his three separate and 
distinct orders, and subsequently, — what evidence is there, that 
it was superior to that of the seventy ? The fact of their being 
chosen first, proves nothing ; for that would go just as far to 
prove graduation of rank among themselves, according to the 
order, in time, of their several callings. The fact that they 
were appointed to be, as a general thing, with Christ, and 
attendants on his person, proves nothing ; for we see another 
and a sufficient reason for that arrangement. 

Mr. Schuyler seems to think, and this is his entire argument, 
hat the superiority of the twelve is indicated, first, by some 
peculiar solemnity in our Lord's manner in connection with 
their call and ordination ; and secondly, by the fact that he is 
said to have ordained them, while it is only said that he 
appointed the seventy. In regard to the first of these conside- 
ations, it was not so unusual a thing for Christ to spend whole 

ghts in prayer, that we must necessarily conclude, when he 
did so, that it was preparatory to some remarkable transaction 
m which he was about to be engaged. If Christ did spend a 

hole night in prayer just previous to ordaining the twelve, 



46 THE CHURCH, 

who knows that his prayerfulness had special relation to that 
event? Our author mentions in this same connection, the 
" fasting, and forty days of temptation in the wilderness," as 
though this had some preparatory reference to the call and 
ordaining of the twelve. It had doubtless just the same pre- 
paratory reference to these acts that it had to all the other acts 
of his public ministry — not ministry in the church, in the office 
of a prelatic order — no more and no less. 

In regard to Mr. Schuyler's second argument, which with a 
singular force of brevity, he expresses by capitalizing the word 
"ordain," I have only to say, that if he will compare the 
Greek word from which this word ordain is translated, with 
that which is rendered "appointed" in the account of the 
seventy, he will find that the argument amounts to nothing. 
That word "ordain" is full of expression to my brother's 
mind. The Greek word is epoiese, from poieo, which, according 
to the best lexicographers, means " to make, to constitute, to 
appoint, as to some office, to declare to be," etc., etc. The 
Greek work rendered " appointed," is " anedeixen " from " ana- 
deiknumi" which, the best lexicographers say, means "to 
manifest, to show plainly or openly, to mark out, to constitute, 
to appoint by some outward sign," etc., etc. 

Neither of these words is the one commonly used to express 
the -'ict of ordination to the christian ministry. For examples: 
Tit i: 6— "That thou shouldst ordain (katasteses) elders in 
ei ery city." Again ; Acts xiv : 23—" When they had ordained 
(cheirotonetantes) them elders in every church," etc. 

I will give now the positive proof that the twelve and the 
seventy, in that peculiar ministry to which they were called and 
ordained, (for the seventy were just as truly ordained as the 
twelve,) were equal. The proof which I have to adduce, is of 
tto doubtful character; it does not depend upon an imaginary 
meaning of certain words, nor upon any fanciful construction 
pul u,,on portions of the gospel history; but upon plain and 
undeniable matters of fact, touching the very heart of the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 47 

question in debate. Every person can see that the proper and 
only proper way to settle such a question as this, is to examine 
the commissions of these two sets of ministers, if so they may 
be called, to see what they were appointed to do, and with 
what powers they were invested. If we find that their com- 
missions were the same, their work the same, their authority 
and power the same, then it is preposterous to say that they 
were unequal in their offices. 

In the first place, then, let it be remembered, that both the 
twelve and the seventy were called and ordained to their work 
by Christ himself. — Compare Mark iii: 14, "And he ordained 
(i e. appointed) twelve that they should be with him, and that 
he might send them forth to preach," with Luke x: 1, "After 
these things, the Lord appointed (i. e. ordained) other seventy 
also." 

Both the twelve and the seventy were sent forth to preach. — 
Matt, x : 5, 7, " These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded 
them, saying," * * * "as ye go, preach." Compare this 
with the whole account in the first seventeen verses of the tenth 
chapter of Luke. 

Both the twelve and the seventy were sent forth two by two. — 
Mark vi : 7, "And he called unto him the twelve, and began 
to send them forth two by two." Luke x: 1, — "The Lord 
appointed other seventy also, and sent them two by two before 
his face." 

They were sent into the same dangers. — Matt, x : 1 6, Christ 
said to the twelve, " Behold I send you forth as sheep among 
wolves : be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." 
To the seventy, Christ said, Lukex: 3, — "Go your ways; 
behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves." 

The twelve and the seventy were commissioned to preach the 
same thing. To the former, the Lord said, Matt, x : 7, "And as 
ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." To 
the latter he said,— Luke x : 9,— "And say unto them, the 
kingdom of heaven is come nigh unto you." 



48 THE CHURCH, 

Both the twelve and the seventy were empowered to work 
miracles. — Matt x : 8. To the twelve Christ said, " Heal the 
sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils : freely ye 
have received, freely give." Compare Luke x : 1 7, 1 9, — "And 
the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the 
devils are subject unto us through thy name." " Behold I give 
unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over 
all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means 
hurt you." 

They were both sent forth by the authority, and in the name 
of Christ — Matt, x: 40. To the twelve Christ said, " He that 
receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth 
him that sent me." Compare Luke x: 16, — To the seventy 
Christ said, "he that heareth you heareth me, and he that 
despiseth you despiseth me : and he that despiseth me, despiseth 
him that sent me." 

Now in what respect do the seventy appear to have been 
inferior to the twelve ? In not a solitary particular can a differ- 
ence be shown. Their ministries were precisely identical. Says 
Whitby, an eminent Episcopalian commentator, vol. i, page 
334, "Some compare the bishops to the apostles, the seventy 
to the presbyters of the church, and thence conclude, the divers 
orders in the ministry were instituted by Christ himself. It 
tii ust be granted that some of the ancients did believe these two 
to be divers orders, and that those of the seventy were inferior 
to t Ik- order of the apostles, and sometimes they make the com- 
parison here mentioned. But then it must be also granted, 
that this comparison will not strictly hold; for the "seventy 
received not their commission, as presbyters do, from bishops, 
bu1 immediately from the Lord Christ, as well as the apostles, 
and in their fust mission were plainly sent on the same errand, 
and with the same poioer? 

"The fact is," says Rev. W. D. Killen, in the 'Plea for Pres- 
bytery/ - the commission given at this time both to the twelve 
and Hie seventy, was temporary. They were sent out for a 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 49 

limited time, and for the special purpose of preparing the way 
for the personal ministry of our Lord. A new commission was 
given to the twelve after Christ's resurrection from the dead — 
more extensive powers were bestowed, and a wider field of labor 
was assigned to them. All the information we have regarding 
the seventy, is contained in the tenth chapter of the gospel of 
Luke. After they returned to their Lord on this occasion, we 
do not read of them again in the New Testament, nor do we 
hear that their temporary commission was ever renewed." 

Now I claim that this second argument from scripture in 
favor of episcopacy, is refuted. There is no foundation for it. 
It is a mere imagination of prelacy-hunters, that makes three 
orders of the christian ministry out of our Lord, the twelve, and 
the seventy. The christian ministry had as yet no existence, 
for there was no christian church. If there had been, it is 
absurd, and almost impious, to make Christ himself, whose the 
church is, and whose the ministry is, a minister in it ; to assign 
to him " the office of a prelatic order." And there is no pretext 
for the claim, whatever may have been the nature of their 
offices, that the seventy were inferior to the twelve. 

So far as there is any argument at all bearing on the general 
subject we are now discussing, in the state of things which 
existed previous to our Lord's death, it is in our favor, and 
directly against our opponents. The Lord Jesus Christ was 
here upon the earth preparing the way for the introduction of 
his kingdom, the setting up of " his church." In this prepara- 
tory work he employed a certain number of ministers, who, 
upon the minutest inspection, appear to have been appointed 
■to identically the same work, and to have been clothed with 
(identically the same powers. They were therefore equal, 
jAmong the ministers employed by our Lord in this preparatory 
Istage of his proceedings, the principle of 'parity obtained. We 
■may conclude, therefore, so far as we may conclude at all from 
Jthis, that it was his design, that in his kingdom, which is his 
[church, there should be but one grade of ministers. 



50 THE CHURCH, 

THE THIRD SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR 
EPISCOPACY. 

A SECOND ORDER IN THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY CONSTITUTED 
BY THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS. 

Our author states his argument, on page fifty, as follows: 
li Let us now see, whether, after Christ's ascension to heaven, 
and when the apostles were left, under the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit, to carry out the instructions of their divine master 
as to his earthly kingdom, they continued these three orders in 
the church ." — Let it be borne in mind by the reader, that no 
christian church had been in existence until the time to which 
this argument introduces us, and consequently, that there could 
have been no orders in the christian ministry. Besides, we 
have shown that the ministers whom Christ had employed in 
the work preparatory to the setting up of his church were al 
equal. Our author continues — " In the sixth chapter of th 
Acts of the Apostles, after the day of Pentecost, and when the 
number of believers had greatly increased, we have an accounl 
of the first ordination which they held. Now, this is a transac- 
tion which we would not have you carelessly to pass over 
After directing their brethren to choose seven men among then 
of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, to serv< 
in the office of deacons in the church, the sacred historian cle 
Clares, 'They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of th< 
Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, anc 
Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch 
whom they sot before the apostles: and when they had prayed 
they laid hands on them.' Now, in answer to the objectioi 
that is sometimes made, that this was not an ordination to th 
ministry, these men having been simply chosen to serve tablei 
we would ask, why the care to choose men full of the Hoi, 
Ghost, and of ivisdom, to act in the capacity of mere tab! 
stewards? But the subsequent history proves, beyond a] 






ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 51 



controversy, that these men were ordained for a higher and 
holier purpose. Immediately after this account, we find 
Stephen, one of the deacons, boldly preaching the faith, and 
suffering martyrdom in this blessed work. And in the eighth 
chapter of Acts, it is recorded, that Philip, another of the dea- 
cons, went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ 
unto them ; and that ' when they believed Philip, preaching the 
things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
Christ, they were baptized^ both men and women ; ' and also, 
that having preached Jesus to the Ethiopean eunuch, he bap- 
tized him. What better proof can we need, that these deacons 
were ministers ? Are laymen authorized to baptize and preach ? 
If so, what is the distinction between the minister and the lay- 
man? — and what need is there of any ordination? Here, 
then, we have two orders in the ministry; and this, of itself, 
destroys the claims of parity ? " 

So my brother leaps to his conclusion. Who constitute the 
two orders in the ministry, which he has now so fortunately dis- 
covered? Why, the apostles and the deacons. But has he 
proved yet that the apostles, as such, constituted an order in the 
permanent ministry of the christian church ? Has he not run 
a long way before his story ? He should have remembered, 
when he wrote this lecture, that he was not writing simply for 
his own people, who would be likely to sympathize in his 
enthusiasm, but for the world, and for us Presbyterians particu- 
larly, who deny that the apostles, as such, were, in any sense, 
an order in that ministry which it was intended the church 
should permanently enjoy. Whatever he may have proved, 
therefore, for himself, and for Episcopalians, he must see, that 
in a controversy with us, even though it were admitted that the 

I deacons were true ministers in the proper sense of that word, 
he has utterly lost his labor, and proved nothing. 
But has he proved his point in regard to the deacons ? Has 
he proved that they were ordained to the christian ministry ? 



52 THE CHURCH, 

and will be treated in its order. The question now relates 
the deacons solely. 

Mr. Schuyler's arguments, for the ministerial character of t 
deacons, are two. 

First. The qualifications which were necessary for the offic 
they were to be men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. I 
puts the argument in this way — " Why the care to choose m 
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, to act in the capacity 
mere table stewards V* It is necessary here to notice the oec 
sion on which the office of deacon, in the christian church, Vi 
instituted, and the purpose for which it was designed. T 
account is at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Acts, and 
as follows : " In those days when the number of the discip 
was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians agair 
the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the dai 
ministrations. Then the twelve called the multitude of t: 
disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we shou 
leave the word of God, and serve tables, wherefore, brethre 
look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of £ 
Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over tl 
business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer ai 
to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased tl 
whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of fai 
and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanc 
and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioct 

Now, to our brother's argument, in the first place, we repl 
that in the writings of the apostles, the expression, "a man fi 
of the Holy Ghost; 1 means nothing more, or less, than a ms 
eminent lor piety; and it was necessary that men known to 1 
of eminent piety should be chosen for this work of presidir 
over and distributing the charities of the church, in order th 
there might be a security for their faithful discharge of tl 
duties entrusted to them ; and that the people, who had ahead 
grown distrustful of the impartiality of the apostles themselve 
might repose confidence in them. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 53 

In the next place, it was necessary that they should be men 
ull of wisdom; because the duties entrusted to them were, as 
very one sees, extremely delicate in their nature, and difficult 

be properly performed. A murmuring had already arisen ; 
iifficulties and dissensions were already springing up in the 
nfant church, in consequence of a supposed unfairness in the 
listribution of the alms. Owing to the peculiar circumstances of 
he time, the poor were very numerous, and there were among 
hem all classes of persons, belonging to different nations, and 
emarkably liable on that account to be jealous of each other, 
tnd particularly, where such interests were concerned as those 
>ver which the deacons were appointed to preside. What could 
>e more important, therefore, than that, besides being eminent 
or piety, the deacons should be also men of great wisdom ? 

Childish as this argument of my brother is, I have chosen to 
reat it with respect, and to answer it fully. It is evident that 
he qualifications of being full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, 
vere essential qualifications for the secular duties of the deacon- 
hip. Mr. Schuyler aims at undervaluing those duties, by 
contemptuously italicising the phrase, " mere table stewards." 
This is a poor trick, and I do not fear that any will be imposed 
ipon by it. The business of the deacons is briefly called 

1 serving tables," because their duties mainly consisted, after 
letermining who were the proper persons to share in the chari- 
ies of the church, in making daily distribution of food for 
;heir tables. 

The second argument to show that the deacons, as such, 
vere invested with a true ministerial character, is the fact that 
wo of them, in the course of the gospel history, are afterward 
bund performing ministerial duties. Stephen is found preach- 
ng, and suffering martyrdom for his fidelity as a preacher, and 
Philip is found preaching and baptizing. 

Now it is to be observed, that the mere circumstance of a 
nan's preaching, is no positive evidence that he had been 
■rdained to the christian ministry. — See Acts, xi: 19-21, 



54 THE CHURCH, 

" Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecutio 
that arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenice, an 
Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unt 
Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus an 
Cyrene, which when they were come to Antioch, spake unt 
the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of tl 
Lord was with them, and a great number believed and tuni€ 
unto the Lord." Were all these, and those men of Cypri 
and Cyrene, ordained christian ministers ? The same thing 
mentioned also in Acts viii : 4, 5 — " Therefore they that we: 
scattered abroad, went everywhere preaching the word. Ar 
Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Chri 
unto them ! " Were all these that were scattered abroa 
ordained ministers ? — I ask again. They all preached, they i 
proclaimed, wherever they went, the doctrines of the gosp< 
and called upon their fellow sinners to repent and believe 
Christ; but that they were all ministers, in our sense of th 
word, no reasonable man will suppose for a moment, much lc 
venture to affirm. 

The argument, then, from the case of Stephen is disposed < 
Now for that from the case of Philip, who not only preache 
but baj)tized, — which, we are willing to admit, was an act th 
could not properly be performed by a layman. The questi< 
which we raise here is this: May not Philip, subsequently 
his receiving the deaconship, and before the events record" 
in the eighth chapter of Acts incident upon his journey 
Samaria, have been specially ordained to the ministerial offic 
May !)'■ not have laid aside his diaconate for higher and holi 
duties! That Philip had ceased to be a deacon, and h; 
assumed another office at a later period, is actually upon recor 
for in Arts wi: s, lie is distinctly mentioned as an evangeli 
Now, who will affirm that this change in his condition had n 
taken place previously to his baptism of the eunuch? Will 
be said, that if this had happened, there would have been sor 
notice -of it? I reply, the fact is undeniable, that he was 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 55 

s&me time ordained to a higher office than the deaconship ; but 
where is any notice to be found of that event i It had occurred 
at some point of time during the course of twenty-six years, and 
who can say that it was not during the first tivo of those years \ 

Now I take the ground absolutely, that Philip had been 
ordained to the office of the gospel ministry priorly to his visit 
to Samaria. If he had not been, then we have a clear instance, 
not only of lay-preaching, but of lay-baptism also; for it is 
demonstrable, that his ordination to the deaconship left him 
nothing but a layman. 

First. It can not be shown that there is any thing absurd or 
improbable in the supposition which I make. It is clear that 
at this early period Philip possessed the proper qualifications for 
the ministerial office; and, at a time when suitable persons to 
become ministers were undoubtedly few, it is only reasonable to 
suppose that such a man as he would early attract the attention 
of the apostles, and be chosen by them to a more dignified and 
important office than that of serving tables, 

Second I ask attention to the simple facts in the case. 
Let the reader recur again to the narrative of the ordination of 
Philip and others to the deaconship, which has been quoted 
already, from the beginning of the sixth chapter of Acts, and 
see for himself, what the true nature and purpose of that ordi- 
nation were. . The facts are there all put before him, and they 
are as plain and intelligible as any facts could be. The apostles 
were pressed with the vast multitude of duties and avocations 
which devolved upon them, and when "there arose a murmur- 
ing of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows 
were neglected in the daily ministrations," they called the 
multitude of the disciples together, and said, " It is not reason 
that we should leave the word of Goa\ to serve tables, wherefore, 
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, 
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint 
over this business." The seven men were found, and when 
they were "set before the apostles," the) 7 , I e n the apostles, 



56 THE CHURCH, 

"praved," and "laid Lands on them/' So they were ordainec 
to the (leaeonship; or in other words, they were "appointee 
over this business 11 of serving tables, or of attending to th< 
wants and interests of the poor. Be it observed, there is no 
the most distant allusion to their being ordained to assist th< 
a >ostles in preaching, or in performing, any whatever of th< 
functions of the ministerial office; but simply to their being se 
over this business of serving tables, that the apostles might no 
be compelled to "leave the word of God," and that thej 
might give themselves " continually to prayer and to the ministry 
of the word." 

Now our Episcopal brethren say, that this was an ordinatior 
to the christian ministry! I feel nothing more strongly thai 
amazement, at such an unfounded and unpalliated pretension 
r l be duties of the deaconship were secular, and nothing bu 
secular, and the deacons, as such, were no more ministers, in th< 
sense of our present discussion, than the trustees of moderr 
congregations, to whom is intrusted the care of ordinary tempo 
ralities, are ministers. They were office-bearers in the church 
but not ministers of the gospel. 

If il is asked, why then were the deacons ordained with sc 
much » rteran formality ? I reply, — that the apostles saw fit to dc 
bo, probably, to inspire them with a higher sense of theresponsi- 
bility of their office, and to inspire the people with highei 
rfeeped for them as office-bearers. After their example, it is th( 
practice in Presbyterian churches, to ordain deacons in the same 
ner, to an office precisely similar. 

N " w then, it' Philip's ordination to the deaconship was nol 
•'"■ ordination to the ministry,— and everyone must own thai 
it was act,— and afterward we find him exercising the functions 
of the ministry, we are bound to conclude that he had received 
in lIh ' mean time, another and a higher ordination, though nc 
; "" ,,,int lr P vel1 as of it There is no other conclusion pos- 
sible, unleee il be thai in some cases both lay-preaching and 
iptiam were practised in the early church. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 57 

Mr. Schuyler's third scriptural argument for Episcopacy then, 
is set aside. I trust rny read ere are capable of seeing that it 
has been set aside fairly and fully : first, by showing that so tar 
as the apostles are concerned, it proceeds upon a mere assump- 
tion that they, as apostles, constituted an order in the permanent 
christian ministry — a proposition which our author should have 
known is utterly denied by us ; and secondly, by showing that 
the deaconship was not a ministerial, but purely a lay office. 

On this subject of the deaconship it will be convenient to say 
something under the next head, 



THE FOURTH SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR 
EPISCOPACY, 

THE THREE-FOLD MINISTRY COMPLETED, BY THE DISCOVERY OF 
ANOTHER ORDER, CALLED PRESBYTERS. 

No one can give Mr. Schuyler's arguments like himself; it is 
due to him, therefore, that he should have the advantage of his 
own statement. He says as follows, page fifty-two: 

u The first mention we find of the order of elders or presby- 
ters (as they mean the same thing, being derived from the same 
Greek word,) is in the eleventh chapter of Acts, where the 
brethren at Antioch, in sending relief to the people of Judea, 
are spoken of as sending it by the hands of Barnabas and Saul 
to the elders. And in the fourteenth chapter it is mentioned 
:hat St. Paul and Barnabas, revisiting the churches which they 
had founded, ordained them elders in every church. Now, 
clearly, these elders were neither apostles nor deacons; but, that 
these elders were ministers, is plainly shown in the charge of 
St. Paul, at Miletus, to those whom he had called from Ephesus : 
' Take heed therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over 
.vhich the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the 
ihurch of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' 
These, it is contended by the advocates of parity, or of but one 
4* 



58 THE CHURCH, 

order in the ministry, are the only bishops which the scriptur 
recognize ; and that no higher authority was committed to ai 
other office in the ministry than to them? But this is 
strangely inconsistent assertion when we have one minister, i 
Paul, the apostle, calling them all together and instructing thei 
and, as we shall shortly see, placing another over them- 
Timothy — with a charge which clearly implies higher authori 
in him, than any which he now recognizes in them. Hei 
then, as we have shown, we have the three orders after Chris 
ascension, viz., apostles, presbyters, and deacons." 

I confess that I find a difficulty in maintaining that degr 
of gravity which should characterize so grave a discussion as tl 
present^ when I am compelled to reply to such reasoning — if 
may call it reasoning — as the above; but since I am commits 
to it, I will even go through, and say what I have to say wr 
the seriousness to which my subject is entitled. I rememb 
that Mr. Schuyler's brethren in this city, whom I respect, , 
I «lo indeed himself also, in any other position than the 01 
he has been permitted to take in this discussion, have sa 
in their commendatory letter Avhich accompanies his boo 
that his "truths? (1 applaud their forbearance on other points 
are k * unanswerable." I shall try, then, to get at Mr. Schuylei 
(ruths. 

The truth- contained in the above extract^ which we ackno\ 
ledge, and do not wish to answer, are the following: 

First Th.u we find no mention of elders in the New Test; 
ment, earlier than that made in Acts xi: 30, Avhere it is sai< 
th:it Barnabas and Saul were commissioned by the christians i 
Antioch, to oonvej their charities tor the poor brethren in Jude, 
to the ban Is of the elders there, 

>nd. Thai these elders were neither apostles nor deacon 

I bird I h.-it these elders were ministers, 
1,1686 ,m,,,s :,,v o( importance. This mission of Barnaba 
md S;ml '" Judea > "* AOt tar from a year after the dispersio: 
1 «* l ,1:,r " on *»oum of (he persecution that arose abou 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 59 

Stephen, at which time Philip went down to Samaria. These 
3lders, Mr. Schuyler owns, were ministers, and he owns too, that 
we have no previous account of them. There had then, as a 
jlear matter of fact, at this early day, been ordinations to the 
ninistry, and very numerous ordinations, of which no mention 
s made in the history. I bring out this fact for the obvious 
purpose of showing more fully, that there is nothing unreason- 
able in my supposition, that Philip had been ordained an elder, 
rhere is, in truth, no avoiding the conclusion that he had been. 
Put together the fact, that his deaconship, which is to be 
udged of solely by the account given of it at the time that 
office was instituted, was a purely secular office, not embracing 
i solitary function of the ministry; that, at a subsequent time 
tie is found exercising another office, that of the ministry itself; 
ind that numerous ordinations to the ministry were constantly 
making place, of which no account whatever is furnished in the 
>acred narrative, and you have proof, which any reasonable 
mind must regard as amounting to demonstration, that Philip 
was one of those, who, without record of the fact, had received 
ministerial ordination. And here, though this point has been 
sufficiently argued before, let me distinctly notify the reader, 
that the entire whole of the Episcopal argument from scripture, 
for the ministerial character of the deacons, rests on the facts 
that, after their ordination to this office Stephen preached, and 
Philip preached and baptized. If, in the unbiassed and sober 
judgment of any man, their argument is not absolutely worthless, 
I know not what an argument needs to be void of, to make it 
worthless. If they say that additional argument is found in the 
directions concerning deacons, that they should u be grave, not 
double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy 
lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience;" 
that they should be proved and found blameless before they are 
put into office, and that they must " be the husbands of one 
wife" — i, e . of but one — and rule "their children and their 
own houses well "—if, I say, they claim that there is additional 



60 THE CHURCH, 

argument in all this, then I affirm that they alone have eyes to 
discover it. These are all proper qualifications doubtless for the 
ministry, but they are proper and important qualifications also 
for the office of the deaconship, according to the view of that 
office which is held by us. It is absurd to say, that from such 
directions concerning deacons, their ministerial character may be 
inferred. These very directions we Presbyterians have always 
aimed to follow in our selection of men to fill the deacon's office 
in our churches. 

We see, then, the kind of evidence from the scriptures, on 
which rests one entire order of the ministry in the Episcopal 
system. To say that it is insufficient, that it is no evidence at 
all, is a work of simple supererogation. 

But now for the episcopal truth in this last passage from 
Mr. Schuyler, which, it is said, is unanswerable. It is found in 
the closing sentence, based upon a discovery that there w T as, at 
the time to which our discussion now relates, a class of ministers 
in the church comprehended under the general designation of 
elders. — Says our author, "Here then, as we have shown, we 
have the three orders after Christ's ascension, viz., apostles, 
presbyters, and deacons" 

u As we Intro shown? — Where, my dear brother? We have 
been looking with all the intentness of which w^e are capable, to 
if we could, something that you had made out, something 
tli; it you had established, and we have looked in vain. We 
J'^'' had "abundance of bold assertion advanced with all the 
confidence of argument," but as for proof, of any tking;we 
l,:lN< ' ttoi yel been fortunate enough to find it. "As we have 
shown t " Whal I do you pretend to say that you have shown 
,ll;lf tll,,,v u,,,v <•>* the time o( which we are speaking, three 
, "' ,i " ,v '" ,l "' pennaneri ministry of the christian ehurch? — and 
fcbai these three orders were apostles, presbyters, and deacons? 
V\ hy, sir, you have nm yel touched the question respecting the 
apostles; you have not glanced at it. In regard to deacons, if 
vmu have shown any thing, I do not know it. As to elders, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 61 

you have shown by the quotation of a text of scripture that 
such a class of ministers existed, and that is all that you have 
shown; and yet, at this point you rest from your herculean 
labor, and cry, Victory ! You have made out your case ! you 
have proved that Episcopacy is the doctrine of the bible ; having 
found in actual existence after Christ's ascension, three dis- 
tinct and separate orders in the ministry of the church — viz., 
apostles, presbyters, and deacons ! 

You said a little while ago, " Let us bring the question of 
parity or imparity, equality or inequality, in the orders of the 
ministry, to the test of scripture." You had said before, " The 
question now comes up, Who are successors of the apostles, and 
who, therefore, are duly empowered to confer the ministerial 
commission ? The determination of this question rests upon the 
decision of the issue between two systems, episcopacy and jDarity." 
You have now brought the question of parity or imparity, to 
the test of scripture, you have tried this issue, and settled it. 
That is, you claim now to have proved that the bible teaches 
episcopacy! Well, I have nothing to say; our readers must 
decide between us. You are prepared now for the main ques- 
tion, and to this you proceed — Who are the successors of the 
apostles, and who therefore have the power to confer the 
ministerial commission? You have concluded your argument 
for imparity in the ministerial office, for three orders, and now 
you say the question returns, " To which of these three orders 
was the ordaining power committed ? " I must be permitted to 
say, that if the question which you are now about to answer, 
does depend on a previous decision of the issue between the 
two systems of parity and imparity, you are in a very sad 
predicament. 

I am not yet quite prepared to follow our author in his next 
advance, having something more to say on the subject of elders. 

"These," that is, elders, says Mr. S., page fifty-three, "it is 
contended by the advocates for parity, or of but one order in 
the ministry, are the only bishops the scriptures recognize, and 



62 THE CHURCH, 

that no higher authority was committed to any other officer in 
the ministry than to them. But this is a strangely inconsistent 
assertion, when we have one minister, St. Paul, the apostle, 
calling them altogether, and instructing them." 

See, here, my brother's inveterate habit of anticipating his 
own argument, and of taking for granted what he has not yet 
proved. Does he not know that we Presbyterians utterly deny 
that " St. Paul, the apostle," was a minister in the church, i. e., 
using the word minister in the sense of the present discussion, 
as the title of one holding an office that was designed to be 
permanent? Paul, the elder, was such a minister in the 
church, — but not Paul, the apostle. After he shall have 
proved that the apostleship was intended to be a successive 
and an abiding office, it will then amount to something to tell 
us of the authority which apostles exercised over other minis- 
ters. Until then, it is not only a waste of words, but it is mere 
trifling and impertinence. 

" It is contended by the advocates for parity, or of but one 
order in the ministry, that the elders are the only bishops which 
tin' scriptures recognize, and that no higher authority was com- 
mitted to any other officer in the ministry than to them." As 
to the latter part of this sentence, I have only to say, that it 
expresses the truth, if our author refers to the permanent officers 
in the ministry; otherwise, not a truth; for we admit, that 
while the apostolic office continued in the church, the apostles 
were superior to the elders. For the rest, do not Episcopalians 
themselves admil that elders are the only bishops which the 
scriptures recognize! What says our author himself on the 
verj aext page, fifty-four— « We readily admit that the name 
of ' bishop, 1 whirl, we now appropriate to the highest grade, is 
,|v "' 1 ,n flwWNfl as importing tl* same office with 'elder' or 
'F"*^" 1,r 1,;,s 1,is own explanation to give for this. 
Bu< here is the fact In the ffew Testament the terms elder or 
presbyter, and bishop, are used interchangeably to indicate one 
;i "« l only one office;— see my sermon upon this .point, — and 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 63 

it may be added that to no other officers in the church what- 
ever, not even to apostles, is the name " bishop " in a single 
instance applied. We do indeed claim therefore, that the 
scriptures recognize no bishops except presbyters ; we claim it 
without contradiction. If other bishops were recognized in the 
church, in subsequent times, we say simply, it was an unauthor- 
ized departure from scriptural usage and established scriptural 
precedent. 

The elders alone, according to the New Testament history, 
had the immediate oversight and spiritual care of the churches. 
Thus, in Paul's address to the elders of Ephesus, at Miletus, he 
said, " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock 
over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (episco- 
pous, bishops,) to feed the church of God, which he hath 
purchased with his own blood." Where is there the record of 
such language used either to, or concerning any other order of 
officers in the church ? Where is the place in which deacons 
are so addressed, or even in connection with such duties, spoken 
of? These are the men, the presbyters, to oversee, to look after, 
to govern the flock, and to feed the church of God, and these 
only. These are the bishops whom the Holy Ghost hath made, 
the true bishops, the only bishops, in spite of all human inven- 
tions, and devices and makings of men. 

The dignity of the presbyterate, or the elder's office, may be 
inferred from the fact, that the apostles themselves delighted to 
assert their own right to it, and to be called by its name. If I 
may for once assume a thing that I have not proved, I will 
assume here that the apostleship was temporary, and not a per- 
manent office in the christian ministry, and I will give this as a 
reason why the apostles gloried in the name of elder ; for in 
respect of the permanent nature of the eldership and the tempo- 
rary nature of the apostleship, the eldership was the nobler and 
better office of the two. While the apostleship should forever 
cease with the lives of the men who first held it, the eldership 
was to be an office in the church till time should be no more, 



64 THE CHURCH, 

under which the church should pass through all her vicissitudes, 
and end at once her triumphs and her toils. Hence the 
apostles may well have felt that it was an honor to be called 
ciders; and we need not wonder that Peter should say, — 
1 Peter, v : 1, — " The elders I exhort, who am also an elder ; " 
and that John, in the salutation of two of his epistles, should 
style himself " the elder." 

Whoever reads attentively the scripture history, and particu- 
larly notices the manner in which elders are spoken of, will not 
fail to notice, that of elders there are two classes, — -those w T ho 
rule, and those who, in addition to the exercise of authority, 
labor also in word and doctrine, familiarly called, in the Presby- 
terian church, " ruling elders " and " teaching elders ; " the 
former of whom are not ministers in the proper sense of that 
word, but assistants of the ministers in the spiritual oversight of 
the churches, — as deacons are assistants of the ministers in 
looking after the poor, and dispensing the public charities for 
their relief. 

A passage clearly bearing on this point, may be found in 
1 Tim. v: 17, — "Let the elders that rule w^ell be counted 
worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and 
doctrine." Here, beyond all reasonable question, are pointed 
oul two classes of oil ice-bearers, exercising separate and distinct 
functions. 

It is intimated in the clearest manner that there are elders 
who rule, and who rule only; /. c, who administer the laws and 
discipline of Christ's house, for the maintenance of good order 
and purity; and that there is another class of elders joined 
with the former iu the exercise of government, who, in addition 
to this, preach thegospel and administer the sacraments. Vari- 
methods have been attempted tor evading the force of this 
! " xt: , " lt Q0 one » ejecting our view of it, has ever been able 
to afford a satisfactory answer to the question, Who are intended 
by the elders tli.it rule well, as distinguished from those that 
,;i,,nrin w,,nl ;in ' 1 <i"<-tnne.> They can not be ministers who 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 65 

have ceased to exercise the functions of the ministry, for such 
do not rule at all. They can not be diocesan bishops, in distinc- 
tion from the preaching presbyters, — for, besides that there 
were no such bishops in the apostolic church, this would be to 
assign higher honor to the presbyters than to the bishops, 
They can not be ordinary bishops or presbyters, in distinction 
from evangelists, — for no such diversity as that which the text 
indicates existed, in the primitive church, between these two 
classes of ministers. They can not be the deacons, — for no rule 
whatever in the church was assigned to these officers. If our 
exposition of the text be not the true one, let another be sug- 
gested, if another can be, which will bear the test of criticism. 

With the text that has been cited, compare 1 Cor. xii: 28 
" God hath set some in the church, first, apostles ; secondarily 
prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; then gifts of 
healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Although 
in this passage there is an enumeration of miraculous and extra- 
ordinary ministrations in the early church, yet evidently, it must 
also be considered as specifying, in part, ordinary and perma- 
nent office-bearers. Dr. John Dick says, " There are no persons 
who may be so reasonably supposed to be meant by ' helps ' as 
deacons ; and thus the word has often been explained. They 
were instituted for the express purpose of helping the apostles, 
for the purpose of relieving them from the care of the poor, 
that they might devote themselves exclusively to the ministry 
of the word. If helps signify helpers, governments must 
signify governors, the abstract being put in both cases for the 
concrete. The question then is, Who were the governors to 
whom the apostles referred ? They were not the apostles, nor 
the prophets, nor the teachers, because these are mentioned as 
distinct classes. They were not helpers, because these are men- 
tioned as a distinct class also; and besides, if deacons were 
intended, they could with no propriety be called governors, for 
deacons have no rule in the church. There is no other class of 
persons to whom this title, used as it is in contradistinction to 



66 THE CHURCH, 

other office-bearers, will apply, but the ruling elders of Presby- 
terians ; and it is with obvious propriety that they are designated 
as governors, since the sole business of their office is to govern 
the congregation over which they are appointed. God has set 
some governors in the church. He has not lodged the power in 
the people at large, but has ordained that a few, appointed by 
the whole, should be invested with authority to take order that 
the members should walk in the ordinances and commandments 
of God." 

Compare, also, Rom. xii: 6-8, "Having then gifts differing 
according to the grace that is given to us ; whether of prophecy, 
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith ; or ministry, 
let us wait on our ministering ; or he that teacheth, on teach- 
ing ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he that giveth, let 
him do it with simplicity ; he that ruleth, with diligence ; he 
that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness." 

I quote again from Dr. Dick. 

" It is the opinion of many commentators, that prophesying, 
which sometimes signifies public teaching by the assistance of 
the Holy Spirit, and ministry, are general divisions under which 
the different offices of the church are arranged; that prophesy- 
ing comprehends teaching and exhorting; and ministry, giving, 
ruling, and showing mercy. At any rate, it is plain that ruling 
is distinguished from teaching, exhorting, and giving, or from 
the peculiar work of the pastor, the doctor, and the deacon. 
Theorigina] term, proistamenos, is properly translated, he that 
rvleth, because it evidently denotes one who presides over others 
wiili authority. This presidency is attributed to one as his 
proper business. It is his duty to preside, or to rule, as it is 
" , ' another to teach, or to give. The apostle is not enumerating 
the various duties of one individual, but the different duties of 
different individuals. Who, then, isfo that ruleth? He is not 
,,H " deacon, for the deacon does not rule, but gives to the poor; 
,,, ' ,s ,1Mt ,,h ' pastor, for, although the pastor rules, he is here 
characterized by teaching, or exhorting, which is peculiar to him. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 67 

He that rules must, therefore, be a person whose whole duty 
consists in ruling ; or, in other words, an elder, according to the 
views of Presbyterians. Some tell us, that his rule is over his 
family; but this is nothing to the purpose, and is a shift to 
get rid of a difficulty, because the apostle is obviously speaking 
of the church. Others say, that he rules over the church stock ; 
but they confound him with the deacon, who gives ; and besides, 
in this sense, the expression would be indefinite and improper ; 
there being nothing to determine the kind of rule to which the 
apostle refers ; and surely, it will not be supposed that a deacon 
was held in such estimation in primitive times as to be called 
proistamenos — he that rules — by way of eminence. There is 
another mode of evading the argument, by saying that the 
apostle is not speaking of offices and office-bearers, but of gifts. 
Some pains have been taken to obviate this objection, but with- 
out necessity, because it is manifestly unfounded; and, at any 
rate, it does not answer the design of those who have adopted 
it. Paul does indeed make mention of gifts; but he imme- 
diately proceeds to consider them as bestowed upon particular 
persons, and speaks of those persons as plainly as one man can 
speak of another. Besides, although he were speaking of gifts, 
the argument is of the same force as if he were speaking of 
persons ; for gifts are bestowed upon persons for particular pur- 
poses. And if there are gifts which qualify for ruling, as there 
are gifts which qualify for teaching, it follows, that to rule or 
govern is the exclusive duty of those upon whom the former 
are conferred. Every unprejudiced man must perceive the 
truth of this reasoning, and consequently must think that the 
evasion mentioned above is not worthy of notice." 

Coincident with all this, and confirmatory of it, is the fact 
everywhere apparent, that in all the churches of the apostolic 
time there was a plurality of elders. Every church had its 
bench, or college of officers, bearing this general appellation ; 
for examples, see Acts xiv : 23 — " And when they had ordained 
them elders in every church" — not an elder in every church, 



68 THE CHURCH, 

but in every church elders. Also, James v: 14 — "Is any 
sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church," &c. 
There were, then, in the apostolic church two classes of elders, — 
not two orders of ministers, but two classes of persons under 
the general designation of elders — one class consisting of 
persons who were fully endowed with all the ministerial func- 
tions, to preach the word and administer the sacraments, and 
to exercise authority in the church as spiritual rulers ; — the 
other, of persons not invested with ministerial powers, but 
appointed, in conjunction with the ministers, simply to rule. 

Now, barely reminding the reader, that the apostles, besides 
being apostles, were also elders, (the proof has been previously 
quoted,) and that the question in regard to the permanency or 
otherwise, of the apostleship, as a ministerial office in the church, 
has not yet been settled, we call him to notice that we have 
found thus far but one order of permanent christian ministers. 
We have found, however, in addition to this one order of min- 
isters, two other permanent offices: those of the deaconship 
and the ruling eldership, as they exist in the Presbyterian 
church. 

The question in regard to the permanency of the deacon's 
office, is admitted on all hands. That in regard to the perma- 
n.ncv of the office of ruling elder, is settled, by a consideration 
of the permanence of the same necessity which first gave 
occasion for its being constituted. 

[f our views in regard to ruling elders shall be controverted, 
*€ have only to admonish those concerned, that their office is 
""t an essentia] feature of Presbyterianism, or of that ecclesias- 
tioal system described by the term parity. 

()l "- author now, page fifty-four, returns to the question, 
NV1,,) m «*»«» of Hie apostles, and who, therefore, are 
empowered to confer the ministerial commission! He says,— 
assuming thai he has established the/ad of three orders in the 
christian ministry--* To which of these three orders was the 
ordaining power oommitted I " This is literally a flight, or a 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 69 

fall, for certainly there is nothing but thin air under him. " To 
which of these three orders ! " What three orders, my dear 
brother ? Surely something is wrong with your eyes, for you 
see treble. Do you not know that you have shown, as yet, but 
one order in the permanent christian ministry ? Why, then, do 
you speak of three ? 

As you seem resolved never to take up the case of the 
apostles, and determine whether, as such, they were the holders 
of a permanent christian ministry ; and as, in fact, you never 
do take it up, but go through your entire book, assuming your 
theory of their office, and making it the very foundation of 
your whole Episcopal system, I must here leave you for a while, 
and attend to that question ; I can not get on farther, without 
having it disposed of. 



WAS THE APOSTLESHIP INTENDED TO BE A 
SUCCESSIVE AND PERMANENT OFFICE? 

We say it was not. In its very nature, as well as in the 
intention of Christ, it was transient, and ceased forever with 
the lives of those on whom it was first bestowed. Let me 
be distinctly understood. I speak of the apostleship. That 
the apostles were to have successors we do not deny, but on 
the contrary, affirm, — yet, not in the apostleship. They were 
presbyters as well as apostles, and it was in the presbyterate 
that they were to be succeeded by others, and in this only. 

What was the real nature of the apostolical office ? We may 
obtain a full answer to this question, by attending to the three 
following inquiries: What were the necessary qualifications 
for the apostolical office ? What were its peculiar functions ? 
And, what were its credentials ? 

First. What were the necessary qualifications for the apos- 
tolical office ? 



70 THE CHURCH, 

In the first place, it was indispensable to the holding of this 
office, that the person should have seen the Lord; at least, that 
he should have seen him once, after his resurrection. The rea- 
son for this will appear, when we come to consider the peculiar 
functions of the apostleship. 

That having seen the Lord, was understood by the apostles 
themselves to be a necessary qualification for entering into their 
office, appears most conclusively from the account we have of 
the election of Matthias to fill the place of Judas. Peter, in 
proposing the designation of candidates, from whom the choice 
should be made by lot, thus describes those from among whom 
they might be selected: Acts i: 21, 22 — "Wherefore, of these 
men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord 
Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism 
of John, unto that same day that he ivas taken up from us, 
must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrec- 
t ion." Comment is needless. The apostles understood that the 
selection must be made from a particular class of persons, 
namely, those who had been with them, and who had a personal 
acquaintance with Christ. 

After our Lord's ascension, when it pleased him to call one 
t«> i he apostleship who had not seen him during his personal 
ministry, or subsequently, during the forty days that he 
remained on earth, he personally appeared to him, with the 
N,rv intent of obviating this difficulty, and said, — see Acts 
xwi: | ,;_" I have appeared unto thee fortius purpose, to 
make thee a minister and a witness, both of these things which 
thou has! Been, and of the things -wherein I will appear unto 
the*." Compare this with what Ananias said to Saul, three 
dap afterward in the city of Damascus, — see Acts xxii: 14, 
'•"'• - tt The God of «>ur fathers hath chosen thee, that thou 
Bhouldesl knnu his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest 
heat the void of his ,,, nth, lor thou shalt be his witness unto 
;i11 men of whal thou hast seen and heard." To this fact, at a 
subsequent lime, when Paul felt it to be incumbent on him to 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 71 

establish his title to the apostolical office, which had probably 
been called in question on the very ground of his not having 
had a personal acquaintance with Christ during his abode on 
earth, he appealed for proof, — see 1 Cor. ix: 1, — "Am I not 
an apostle? Am I not free? have I not seen the Lord?" 
Read also in the same epistle, chapter xv : 5 - 9, — " And that 
he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was 
seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the 
greater part remain at this present, but some are fallen asleep. 
After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And 
last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due 
time, for I am the least of all the apostles." What does he 
mean by this ? What can he mean by it, in the connection in 
which it stands, except that, by the miraculous vision of Christ, 
with which he was favored, he had been, as it were, untimely 
born, or brought into a condition of competency to receive the 
office to which Christ had called him ? His seeing the Saviour 
was in some sense a birth to him ; in some important respect, it 
changed his condition, and gave him a standing which he had 
not before. 

Now, if it be said, that Paul has reference here solely to his 
conversion, I reply — In what sense, then, does he use the 
expression, " out of due time ? " The proper time, and the only 
proper time for Paul to be converted, was the time when he 
first received full and decisive evidence of the messiahship of 
Jesus. His conversion then, was not out of, but in due time ; 
but his becoming eligible to the office of an apostle by a 
personal interview with Christ, was " out of due time." All 
the other apostles had seen and conversed with the Lord while 
he was alive, and afterward, previous to his ascension; but for 
Paul alone was reserved this untimely and miraculous vision of 
him. Beyond all dispute, the birth, the change of condition, 
or of standing to which the apostle refers, as resulting from 
Christ's appearance to him, was the change in his condition, or 
standing in regard to the apostleship, whereby he became what 



72 THE CHURCH, 

he was not before, a suitable person to be admitted to that 
office. Let any one consult the place, and see if it is not his 
apostolical, and not his christian character, of which Paul is 
speaking. He says — " As of one born out of due time, For 
I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called 
an apostle. * * * But by the grace of God I am what 
I am, and his grace was not bestowed on me in vain; but 
I labored more abundantly than they all." 

Other proof is not wanting, that to have seen Christ was an 
indispensable qualification for the apostleship; but the proofs 
that have been adduced, are amply sufficient. 

In the second place ; it was equally indispensable that the 
individual assuming the apostolical office should have received a 
direct and personal call thereto, by Christ, 

That the apostles themselves so understood it, is evident from 
the fact, that when they proceeded, whether properly or impro- 
perly, to choose one to fill the vacant place of Judas, they did 
not venture to designate the person, but having selected two as 
candidates, they appealed to the Lord by a lot, to select between 
them, or, if he should see fit, to reject them both. No other 
instance of the kind is recorded in all their acts. In no other 
ordination of a minister, or of any so-called apostle, did they 
ever proceed in any analogous manner. The case of Paul may 
be referred to again with eminent propriety and force ; it was by 
a direct and personal divine call, and by nothing short of this, 
that he became an apostle ; and distinctly on this ground, as well 
as on the ground of having seen the Lord, he vindicated his 
claim to the apostleship. Thus, Rom. i: 1, — "Paul a servant 
of elosus Christ, called to be an apostle." That he means spe- 
cially and divinely called, called by Christ himself, we know 
from the fact So, 2 Cor. i: 1,— "Paul, an apostle of Jesus 
Christ, by the will of God." Again, 1 Tim. i: 1,— "Paul, an 
apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our 
Saviour;" and more emphatically still, Gal. i: 1, — "Paul, an 
apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 73 

God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Now, it is not 
by a mere accident of style that Paul so often refers to the fact 
of his being specially and personally called to the apostleship 
by Christ, but there was a design in it. Paul knew that he 
did not stand upon precisely the same footing with the eleven, 
and he knew that on this account there were some, who would 
be disposed to make light of his pretensions, and to judge that 
if he were an apostle at all, he was at least not equal with 
the rest. He felt called upon to meet this objection, and to 
assert by arguments, not only his official character, but his 
full equality in that character with others. Hence, he is in one 
place at the pains to show, that he is " not a whit behind the 
pery chiefest of the apostles," and ail along throughout all his 
epistles, it is a marked peculiarity with him to vindicate his 
authority by a continual reference to the two great facts of his 
having seen the Lord, and of his having been called by him to 
;he apostleship. What conclusion is possible, but that Paul, 
mowing his apostleship to be denied by some on the ground of 
lis lacking the necessary qualifications for it, understood that 
hese were the necessary qualifications for that office, and 
herefore claimed to possess them ? 

It may be mentioned, as a fact, that the official title of apos- 
le, is nowhere in the scriptures given to one whom Christ had 
lot personally called and appointed to that office. 

With this notice of the qualifications for the apostolic office, 
ve may proceed, 

Secondly. To consider its peculiar /mictions. 

These may be all classed under one general head, — bearing 
vitness of Christ, of his doings and doctrines; and especially 
>f the great fact upon which the credibility of all the rest de- 
>ended, — his resurrection from the dead. This they were 
do from personal knowledge ; not as second-hand and hear- 
ay witnesses, but as eye-witnesses of the facts, and as actual 
Learers of the words spoken by him. Thus Peter says, 2 epis- 
le, i: 16-18, " For we have not followed cunningly devised 
5 



74 THE CHURCH, 

fables, when Ave made known unto you the power and coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty 
For he received from God the Father honor and glory, wher 
there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This 
is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this 
voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were witl 
him in the holy mount." So also, John, 1 Epistle, i : 1- 3 
" That which was from the beginning which we have heard 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon 
and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; for the lif< 
was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, anc 
show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father 
and was manifested unto us; that which we have seen anc 
heard declare we unto you." 

It was especially that the twelve might be qualified to b< 
such witnesses of Christ, that he ordained or appointed them t< 
" be with him," during the time of his earthly ministry, — tha 
they might see and hear all that he did and said. To mak< 
up to Paul what he lacked from having never been with hin 
or seen him, the risen and glorified Saviour appeared to hin 
on his way to Damascus; and not only thus prepared him t< 
be a competent witness of his resurrection, but promised hin 
other similar appearances and special revelations, that he migh 
in all respects be placed on an equality with the other apostles 
— ki I have appeared unto thee," said Christy "for this purpose 
t<> make thee a minister and a witness, both of these things iv hie) 
thou hast seen and iA' those tJiinus i)i the which I will appea\ 
unto thee" And Paul, in fact, was an original and independ 
cut witness — JUS( such as the nature and conditions of th< 
apostleship required. As lie had not been made an apostle "o 
m. -II, ueither by man," bo lie did not obtain from men the gos 
pel which 1m- preached. To the Galatians, he says — chapte 
i : LI, 12 — kk I certify yon, brethren, that the gospel which wa 
preached of me, is pot alter man; tor I neither received it of man 
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.' 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 75 

Now let the reader understand, that what we are looking 
after, is that which was peculiar to the apostolic office, and dis- 
tinguished it from the ordinary office of the gospel ministry. 
What we desire as the end of this inquiry is, to know whether 
the apostolic office was intended to be a permanent and suc- 
cessive office in the christian church. The question now is, 
what were its peculiar and characteristic functions ? "We have 
already answered, by saying that all were comprehended in 
this, — to bear witness from personal knowledge, of Christ, 
of his doings and doctrines, and especially of his resurrection 
from the dead. We challenge the world to show any thing 
besides this, appertaining to the apostolic office, that was 
peculiar to it and distinguished it. 

Accounts of the original appointment of the apostles may be 
found in three places : Matt, x, Mark hi, and Luke vi. In the 
tenth chapter of Matthew there is a minute and full statement 
of the instructions, which, on that interesting and solemn occa- 
sion, our Lord addressed to them. The reader may refer to it 
and satisfy himself that there is nothing there contradictory to 
my present statement in regard to the peculiarity of their office. 

The final commission which our Lord gave to his apostles, 
just before his ascension, ought to throw light upon this subject. 
For the reader's convenience I will quote the several passages 
entire, from the different places in which the commission 
is found : 

Matt, xxviii : 16-20. — "Then the eleven disciples went 
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus appointed 
them. 

" And when they saw him they worshiped him : but some 
doubted. 

" And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth. 

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; 



76 THE CHURCH, 

" Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have 
commanded you : and, lo, I am with you always, even unto 
the end of the world. Amen." 

Mark xvi: 14-16. — "Afterward he appeared unto the 
eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their un- 
belief, and hardness of heart, because they believed not them 
which had seen him after he was risen. 

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature. 

" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he 
that believeth not shall be damned." 

Luke xxiv: 46 - 49. — "And (he) said unto them, Thus it is 
written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from 
the dead the third day; 

" And that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 

" And ye are witnesses of these things. 

" And behold, I send the promise of the Father upon you." 

Acts i: 6-9. — "When therefore they were come together, 
they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore 
again the kingdom of Israel ? 

" And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times 
or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. 

- Bui j e -hall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
Upon y»>u : and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem 
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
of the earth. 

"And wlicn he had spoken these things, while they beheld, 

lie was taken up. ,J 

Tli«> reader discovers two things simply, in these records. 
First, thai the apostles received an ordinay commission, as 
ministers, or common preachers of the gospel, authorizing them 
to <lo, N\| i; ,t every ordained minister may do as well as they, to 
preach and administer the sacraments. Read the records in 
Matthew and Mark. And secondly, that they received an 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 77 

extraordinary commission, appointing them to a work which 
none but they were competent to perform, and in which they 
could not have successors, for the reason that none after them 
could be competent to perform it. — See the records in Luke 
and Acts. Their extraordinary and peculiar work as apostles, 
was, to bear witness of Christ. — Luke xxiv: 48- — "And ye 
are witnesses of these things? That is, of the things spoken 
of in the forty-sixth verse — his sufferings, and death, and resur- 
rection from the dead, according to the predictions of the Old 
Testament concerning the true Messiah. They had been per- 
sonally cognizant of the facts, and being able to testify from 
their own knowledge, they were his chosen and authorized 
witnesses of them to the world. 

To the same effect, as indicating their extraordinary and pecu- 
liar office, according to the record in Acts, Christ said — " And ye 
shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all 
Judea" &c. 

Each version, therefore, that we have of the commission which 
the apostles received from Christ after his resurrection, specifies 
two classes of duties or acts which they were to perform ; one, 
of duties or acts which were to be performed, in common with 
them, by all christian ministers: and one, of a duty peculiar 
to them, which none but they could perform,. And that pecu- 
liar service of the apostles neither includes the prerogatives of 
government and ordination which, it is pretended, appertained 
to them exclusively, nor has it any relation, near or remote, 
to such prerogatives, except as it implied a knowledge of 
the Saviour's will, which would specially qualify them for 
assuming, during their lifetime, the superior direction of all 
church affairs. 

Let us now take some other place, if we can find one, and 
happily there are many, in which the peculiar business of an 
apostle is distinctly stated. We refer the reader again, in Acts i, 
bo the place where we have the account of the selection of 
Matthias to fill the vacancy occasioned by the apostacy of Judas. 



78 THE CHURCH, 

The twenty-first and twenty-second verses contain the words to 
be noticed : after Peter had explained the necessity which he 
supposed existed for the appointment of another apostle, he thns 
proceeded — " Wherefore, of these men which have companied 
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among 
us, beginning at the baptism of John, unto that same day that 
he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
zvith us of the resurrection of Christ? 1 Observe, he must be 
chosen from among them that were competent to be witnesses, 
having a personal knowledge of the matters in regard to which 
the witnessing was to be done; and to be such a witness, a 
witness from personal knoivledge, was the special service for 
which he was to be made an apostle. Could any thing be 
plainer than this ? And, let it be further noticed, that this was 
specifically the view which the eleven took of the apostolic 
office held by themselves — " Wherefore * * * must one 
be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." 
Their own work as apostles they understood to be, to bear 
witness of Christ's resurrection. 

Take again, the case of Paul, as bearing on the point now 
under consideration. We have two separate accounts of his 
appointment to the apostleship, in each of which there is a 
distinct Btatement of the design of his appointment, and the 
nature of the Berviee which, in that character, he was to perform. 
Firetj in A.is mi: 14-15, Ave have the words of Ananias: 
"The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest 
know his will, and see that Just One, and hear the words of his 
mouth, /or thou shaU be hie witness unto all men of what thou 
hast nem and heard." A-ain, in Acts xxvi: 16, we have the 
UM|,U n| ' n,ir Lord himself: «I have appeared unto thee for 
this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness, both of 
these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the 
which I will appear unto thee." There is another text, in 
NX,ii: I ! - **« A* "at.nv of Paul's apostolic work is 
described in axaotf conformity with the style above employed : 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 79 

" The Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul ; 
for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear 
witness also at Rome." 

Everywhere, in the sacred narrative of the labors of the 
apostles, this bearing witness, from personal knowledge, of Christ, 
and particularly, of Christ's resurrection from the dead, is kept 
prominent, as the great thing. Peter, in his sermon on the day 
)f Pentecost, says, Acts ii : 32 — " This Jesus hath God raised 
ip, whereof we are ivitnesses." Peter and the other apostles, 
Defore the council, said, Acts v: 29-32 — "We ought to obey 
Grod rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, 
whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted 
with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to 
give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins, and we are 
Us witnesses of these things" Again, Acts x: 39-41, Peter 
it Cesarea declared — " And ive are ivitnesses of all things 
which he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem ; 
whom they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up 
:he third day, and showed him openly ; and he commanded us 
x> preach unto the people, and to testify that it was he which 
was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead." 
Amd John tells us, Rev. i : 9, that he " was in the isle that is 
called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of 
Jesus? His banishment was for preaching the gospel, and for 
leaving witness of Christ. 

We have thus shown, as we think, by testimony which can not 
ail to carry conviction to every unbiassed mind, what was the 
oeculiarity of the apostolic office. It was not to govern the 
hurch, and to ordain ministers, but to bear witness, from per- 
onal knowledge, of Christ, and particularly, of his resurrec- 
tion. In the performance of this general duty, they not only 
.estifled orally to men, while they lived, but they wrote down 
;heir testimony for all succeeding generations — which we have 
n the gospels and epistles, composed, as their oral testimony 
was delivered, under a divine inspiration, preserving them from 



80 THE CHURCH, 

errors, and according to the Saviour's promise (John xiv: 26) 
teaching- them all things, and bringing all things to their 
remembrance, whatsoever Christ had spoken unto them. As 
witnesses for Christ, they also presided over the formation and 
establishment of the Christian church, directing and ordering 
all things in accordance, undoubtedly, with instructions which 
he had given them during his life time, and subsequently, 
previous to his ascension. 

Now, Episcopalians tell us, that the peculiar functions of the 
apostolic office were, to govern the church and ordain ministers. 
Where do they get it ? Is it not very singular, if that were 
the case, that neither in their commission, nor in one solitary 
place where the design of their appointment is stated, is there 
the faintest allusion to any such functions as these ? Why have 
we no mention of them in the account that is given us of the 
appointment of Matthias ? Why none, in the repeated accounts 
by Paul of his own call and consecration to this work ? Why 
is the work of an apostle always that which we have described — 
to bear witness, from jiersonal hioivledge, of Christ — and 
never that which our opponents pretend it was, to govern and 
ordain ? Must not this appear, to our Episcopal friends, a very 
remarkable circumstance ? 

But Episcopalians say, " Look at the facts ; " and in opposi- 
tion to our citation of plain and positive records, as to what 
the greal and essential peculiarity of the apostleship was, they 
refer us to the fads that the apostles did govern the church and 
ordain ministers. We do not deny that they did so. We only 
deny thai to do these things was properly and peculiarly apos- 
tolical work. We deny that to govern and ordain were 
properly and peculiarly apostolic functions. It must be 
remembered thai the apostles were -presbyters also; and we 
maintain, thai so far as they acted officially in the government 
of the church, and in the ordination of ministers, they acted 
in their presbyterial, and not in their apostolical character. 
5?hia *€ confirm: first, by the fact which has been made 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 81 

[ready to appear — that to do these things was not included 
1 their apostolical warrant ; and secondly, by the fact which 
dll be made equally apparent by and by — that to do these 
lings was proper presbyterial work. The apostles were 
le men of course, and of necessity, to take the lead, and to 
ppear at the head of every thing while they lived. Their 
nowledge, from having been with Christ and received his 
ersonal instructions, and their inspiration, sufficiently indicated 
lem, so long as they continued in the church, as absolute and 
ithoritative directors in all matters ; and it is not to be for- 
otten, that at the beginning there were no ministers in the 
lurch, of any kind, except themselves ; so that what was done, 
as of necessity done by them. 

The supremacy of the apostles, as such, in the church, resulted 
om their peculiar character as witnesses of Christ. They, and 
ley only, knew his doctrines and his will. They, and they 
lly, were competent to say what directions the master had 
ft behind him, for the ordering of his kingdom. They had 
3en chosen and personally instructed by him for this especial 
arpose ; and they had his spirit to assist and guide them in 
teir work. This, of itself, while they lived, made them rulers. 
hey had " the mind of Christ," so that in them Christ still 
ved. They were in his stead, and their word was Christ's 
ord. During their life-time they were governors, not in officio, 
it ex officio. Government was not their proper office, but in 
Le peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, it was an 
aavoidable contingent of their proper office as ivitnesses. We 
.•e prepared now to consider 

Thirdly. The ' credentials of the a r postleship. What were 
le marks of a true apostle ? I begin here by referring to the 
ords cf Paul, in 2 Cor. vii: 12 — "Truly the signs of an 
oostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and 
onders, and mighty deeds ? Now it is to be remembered, 
Lat Paul had been called to the apostleship in a miraculous 
ay, and that for the actuality of his call, he was himself, 
5* 



82 THE CHURCH, 

almost, if not quite, the only witness. They that journeyed with 
him, at the time when the Lord appeared to him on his way to 
Damascus, could, if summoned to give their testimony, confirm 
some of the circumstances in his most w6nderful narration ; for 
they saw the light, and all fell to the earth, overwhelmed by the 
awful glories of the vision ; but they did not hear the voice that 
conversed with Saul; and of that, which was the main thing, 
they could say nothing. It was necessary, therefore, that Paul 
should be able to establish his claims to the apostleship by some- 
thing more than a mere verbal declaration of what he had 
seen and heard. If there were " signs of an apostle" whereby 
one called of God to the performance of that high mission, 
might be certainly accredited and known, it was indispensable 
that he should be able to produce them. From the text that 
has been quoted we learn, — First, the fact, that there were such 
"signs of an apostle" as those of which I have just spoken; 
and secondly, we learn what the " signs of an apostle " were. 
To establish their credit among men as his witnesses, Christ 
had endowed his apostles with the power of working miracles, 
of doing the same things in his name, which he himself had 
been wont to do in confirmation of his own claims to be the 
messiah. I am well aware that it may be said, that in the 
early days of the church the power of working miracles was 
not confined to the apostles, and therefore could not be regarded 
as especially a badge or credential of apostleship; but I reply, 
ili.it this is a mere evasion: the power of working miracles was 
the proof of whatever was sought to be proved by such means. 
Christ's miracles were wrought in attestation of his messiah- 
ship; am! they proved his messiahship. The miracles of the 
apostles were wroughl in attestation of their apostleship; and 
the] proved their apostleship. If it can be shown that others 
in the early church ever performed miraculous works to prove 
that they were apwtfw, then something will be made out against 
ih- position I have taken. My position simply is, that the power 
df working miracles was an essential testimony of apostleship 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 83 

to them who claimed to be apostles; and that none were 
received as apostles, who did not show this sign. Paul said to 
the Corinthians, "And truly the signs of an apostle were 
wrought among you," &c. Those "signs, and wonders, and 
mighty deeds," therefore, which he had wrought, were under- 
stood to be proofs of his apostolical authority, and not only 
so, but they were understood to be the signs always, in every 
instance, by which one claiming to be an apostle verified his 
commission. 

Besides working miracles, in the proper sense of such lan- 
guage, the apostles had the peculiar and exclusive power of 
imparting miraculous gifts of the spirit, by the imposition of 
hands ; and to aid them in the important and most responsible 
work which devolved on them, not as apostles merely, but as 
ordinary ministers, in the original founding and establishing of 
the christian church, and in the selection of persons to take part 
with them in their ministry, they seem to have enjoyed, to a 
very great extent, the peculiar prerogative of discerning spirits, 
of knowing the inmost thoughts and real characters of men. 
It is needless to furnish proof on these points. 

Having now shown what were the essential qualifications of 
the apostleship, what were its peculiar functions, and what were 
its credentials, we are ready for the main question : Was the 
apostleship designed to be a permanent and successive office in 
the church? There is no presumption, certainly, in saying that 
this question is already answered. If it has been established 
that none could be apostles who had not seen the Lord, and 
who were not directly and personally called by him — that the 
peculiar and proper functions of the apostolic office were all 
comprehended under the general description of bearing witness, 
from personal knowledge, of Christ; and that the requisite 
" signs of an apostle " were miracles, then the question now 
before us, is effectually and finally disposed of. The apostles, as 
such, were to have no successors. They could have none. As 
such, they are still present in the church, witnessing to us by 



84 THE CHURCH, 

their writings. They were the apostles while they lived. 
They are the apostles now; and to the end of time, they will 
continue to be the apostles — unsucceeded, for the simple and 
sufficient reasons, that in the nature of things, without a succes- 
sion of such miracles as were wrought in the case of Paul, no 
succession could take place; and that the great head of the 
church has never seen fit to perpetuate the succession by such 
miraculous means. 

At this point I desire to introduce certain testimonies, which 
can not fail to have weight with the reader. And first, though 
an anonymous helper of Mr. Schuyler has endeavored — see 
Mr. Schuyler's book, page 219 — to show, that in quoting this 
author in my sermon, I perverted his meaning, I offer again 
the testimony of Dr. Barrow. The reader will be able to judge 
whether it is in point. I shall quote this time, I trust, more to 
the satisfaction of my reviewers. — See Barrow on the Supre- 
macy of the Pope, pp. 122, 123, 124. 

" The apostolical office, as such, was personal and temporary ; 
and therefore, according to its nature and design, not successive, 
or communicable to others, in perpetual descenclence from them. 

" It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a 
special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by 
special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful for 
the propagation of Christianity and founding of churches. 

" To that office it was requisite, that the person should have 
;tii immediate designation and commission from God; such as 
Si. Paul doth so often insist upon for asserting his title to the 
office: Paul, an apostle, not from men, or by man. — Gal. i: 1. 
k Not by men? saith St Chrysostom, Hhis is a property of the 
apostles.* 

U I\ was requisite thai an apostle should be able to attest 
concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, either immedi- 
ately, as the twelve, or by evident consequence, as St. Paul; 
thus Si. Peter implied, at the choice of Matthias, Acts i: 21, 22: 
Wherefore oftheSi men which have companiedwith us * * 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 85 

must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the resur- 
rection; and, 1 Cor. ix: 1, xv: 8, Am I not, saith St. Paul, 
in apostle? have I not seen the Lord? according to that 
)f Ananias, Acts xxii: 14, 15, The God of our Fathers hath 
'hosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that 
lust One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth; for thou 
halt bear witness, unto all men of what thou hast seen and 
\eard. 

" It was needful, also, that an apostle should be endowed with 
airaculous gifts and graces, enabling him, both to assure his 
uthority and to execute his office ; wherefore St. Paul calleth 
bese, 2 Cor. xii: 12, Rom. xv: 18, the marks of an apostle, 
be which were wrought by him among the Corinthians 
i all patience, or perseveringly, in signs, and wonders, and 
lighty deeds. 

" It was also, in St. Chrysostom's opinion, proper to an 
postle, that he should be able, according to his discretion, in a 
3rtain and conspicuous manner to impart spiritual gifts ; as St. 
'eter and St. John did at Samaria; which to do, according to 
lat father, was the peculiar gift and privilege of the apostles. 
ihrys. in Acts viii: 18. 

" It was also a privilege of an apostle, by virtue of his com- 
lission from Christ, to instruct all nations in the doctrine and 
lw of Christ; he had right and warrant to exercise his fu ne- 
on everywhere; his charge was universal and indefinite; the 
hole world tvas his province. — Chrys. in John xxi. He was 
ot affixed to any one place, nor could be excluded from any; 
e was, as St. Cyril calleth him, — Cyril, in Gen. vii, — an oecu- 
menical judge, and an instructor of all the sub-celestial world. 

"Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, according 
| discretion, as being guided by infallible assistance, to the 
hich they might upon occasion appeal and affirm. — Acts xv : 
3, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. Whence 
teir writings have passed for inspired, and therefore canonical, 
* certain rules of faith and practice. 



86 THE CHIIRCH, 



as- 



" It did belong to them to found churches, to constitute p; 
tors, to settle orders, to correct offenses, to perform all such acts 
of sovereign spiritual power, in virtue of the same divine assist- 
ance, according to the authority which the Lord had given 
them for edification; as we see practised by St. Paul. 

" In fine, the the apostleship was, as St. Chrysostom telleth 
us, — Chrys. in Rom. i, — a business fraught with ten thou- 
sand good, things; both greater than all privileges of grace, and 
comprehensive of them. 

" Now such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary 
privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the 
foundation of the church, and the diffusion of Christianity 
against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages which it 
then needs must encounter, was not designed to continue by 
derivation; for it containeth in it, divers things, which appa- 
rently, (i. e.j evidently) were not communicated, and which no 
man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could challenge to 
himself. 

" Neither did the apostles pretend to communicate it : they 
did indeed appoint standing pastors and teachers in each church ; 
they did assume fellow-laborers or assistants in the work of 
preaching and governance, but they did not constitute apostles, 
equal to themselves in authority, privileges, or gifts; for, who 
hnomtth not, saith St. Austin, i. e. Augustin, (Aug. de Bap. 
Cont. Don. ii: 1,) — Who know eth not that principate of apos- 
tleship to be preferred before any episcopacy? And saith Be- 
larmine, — Bel. iv: 25,— The bishops have no part of the 
true apostolical authority. 

u Wherefore St Peter, who had no other office mentioned in 
scripture, or known to antiquity, beside that of an apostle, 
©wild not have, properly and adequately, any successor to his 
Offipe; but it naturally did expire with his person, as did that 
of the other apoet&ee* 

"Aceoidingly, whereas the other apostles, as such, had no 
successors, the apostolical office not being propagated, the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. si 

primacy of St. Peter, whatever it were, whether of order or 
jurisdiction, in regard to his brethren, did cease with him; for 
token there were no apostles extant, there could be no head or 
prince of the apostles in any sense." 

] trust I shall not be accused again of garbhng the words of 
Dr. Barrow. Mr. Schuyler and his anonymous assistant may 
perhaps regret that I have not garbled. I have culled nothing, 
but have given the entire section on the point under considera- 
tion, as Dr. Barrow left it. Whether Dr. Barrow's views of the 
apostleship are different from mine, the reader will judge. 
Indeed, while transcribing, I have felt almost afraid that I 
should be suspected of having borrowed my entire argument 
from him, so exactly do my reasonings coincide with his. 

My reviewer, — see Mr. Schuyler's book, page 220, — says, 
that " the particular subject on which Dr. Barrow is treating, is 
that there is no succession, as Romanists alledge, to the primacy 
of St. Peter. 11 This is indeed the point which Dr. Barrow is 
aiming to establish; but in what way does he establish it? 
Simply by proving that Peter's primacy among the apostles 
was not communicable ? No, but by proving that the apostle- 
ship itself was not communicable. See the summing up of 
his argument in the last paragraph of my quotation from him. 
Peter's primacy ceased with him : because, " whereas the other 
apostles, as such, had no successors, the apostolical office was 
not propagated;" consequently, u when there were no apostles 
extant, there could be no head or prince of the apostles" 

On the same page, the reviewer says, " It is only the apos- 
tolical office, as characterized by the inspiration, and miraculous 
powers of its first incumbents, which he (Dr. Barrow) asserts 
can have no succession." The reader can not be deceived by 
such a representation as this, with Dr. Barrow's own words 
before him. What does he say? That the apostles did not 
transmit their miraculous powers? No; that they did not 
transmit their office. " The apostles, as such, had no succes- 
sors." After their death, "there were no apostles extant" 



88 THE CHURCH, 

"Such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges, 
&c, was not designed to continue by derivation." "The apos- 
tolical office, as such, was personal and temporary, and 
therefore according to its nature and design, not successive." 
But my reviewer says that Dr. Barrow did not mean the apos- 
tolical office, as such, but only " the apostolical office as 
characterized by inspiration and miraculous powers ! " If 
this were so, what would become of his argument against the 
pope ? The very gist of that argument is, that as the apos- 
tleship was not successive, Peter's primacy, of whatever it 
consisted, could not be; that, as after the death of the first 
apostles, there were no more apostles extant, there could be no 
head or prince of the apostles." If he simply meant, that after 
the first apostles, their successors ceased to be endowed with 
inspiration and miraculous powers, how would this prove that 
there might not be a head or a prince among their successors, 
as well as among themselves ? It might serve to show that the 
pope's pretensions to inspiration and miraculous powers are 
unfounded, if he is fool enough to claim such things ; but it 
could not in the least affect his claims to the succession of 
Peter's primacy. 

Dr. Barrow, if he were alive, I am sure, would protest 
against such an interpreter of his writings, as Mr. Schuyler's 
friend. He was an Episcopalian, but very far from being a 
believer in that kind of apostolical succession, which has become, 
of late, the popular and prevailing dogma of modern Episcopal 
divines. 

My next testimony is from the " Synopsis Papismi," of Dr. 
Will. -I, published in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and dedi- 
(,;,,,m1 to ber; tllr author professes to give not only his own 
opinion, l>ut thai of the English church. The quotations are 
made by Rev, Wm. C. Wisner, in his book entitled "Prelacy 
and Parity/' Dr. Willet says, "Every godly and faithful 
bishop is a successor of the apostles. We deny it not; and so 
«W all faithful and godly payors and ministers. For in respect 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 89 

rf their extraordinary calling, miraculous gifts, and apostleship, 
the apostles have properly no successors ; as Mr. Bembridge, 
;he martyr, saith, that he believed not bishops to be the succes- 
sors of the apostles, for that they be not called as they were, 
tor have that grace. That, therefore, which the apostles were 
especially appointed unto, is the thing wherein the apostles 
were properly succeeded ; but that was the preaching of the 
gospel : as St. Paul saith, he was sent to preach, not to baptize, 
rhe promise of succession, we see, is in the preaching of the 
vord, which appertaineth as well to other pastors and ministers, 
is to bishops." " This," — says Mr. Wisner, and I perfectly 
igree with him, — " is just as we believe : the apostles, as such, 
lave no successors ; but as presbyters, or simple preachers of 
he gospel, they are succeeded ; and every faithful minister is, 
a this sense, a successor of the apostles.'' 1 Again, from Dr. 
billet : " Seeing, in the apostles' time, a bishop and a priest 
Fere, neither in name, nor in office distinguished, it followeth, 
hen, that either the apostles assigned no succession while they 
ived, neither appointed their successors; or that, indifferently, 
11 faithful pastors and preachers of the apostolic faith, are the 
postles' successors. 11 

Archbishop Whately, in his u Kingdom of Christ," page 109, 
ays — "The apostle Paul, in speaking of miracles as 'the 
igns of an apostle,' evidently implies, that no one, not pos- 
essing such miraculous gifts as his, much less without possessing 
ny at all, could be entitled to be regarded as on a level with 
be apostles." Of course the apostles, having no successors in 
be gift of miracles, have none in the apostleship. 

Similar testimonies, from Episcopal writers of the highest 
uthority, might be quoted indefinitely. 

I beg my readers not to forget the testimonies from ancient 
uthors, quoted by Dr. Barrow ; and that they may have their 
all weight, I shall extricate them, and place them here in a 
aore conspicuous light. 



90 THE CHURCH, 

St. Chrysostom, on Galatians ill, where Paul declares himsel 
M an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,' 
Bays — M not by men; this is a property of the apostles." Tha 
is, to be directly and immediately called by Christ himsell 
is a -property, or peculiarity, of the apostles; this distinguishe 
diem. 

The same father, on Actsviii: 18, declares, that to communi 
cate tlie Holy Ghost, by the imposition of their hands, was th< 
peculiar gift and privilege of the apostles; by which Barron 
understands him to mean, that that power appertained to th< 
apostolic office, as a mark or function of it, so that its discontin 
nance proves the discontinuance of the office itself. 

Again, on John xxi: — "His charge, i. e., an apostle's, wa* 
universal and indefinite; the whole world urns his province.' 

Barrow understands St. Chrysostom as meaning, by this 
that in this respect, of the extent of his charge, an apostle helc 
an office marked by a peculiarity which rendered it incommun 
icable to others in succession. The fact that no living bishop 
save the pope of Rome, lays claim to any such extent of diocese 
is well known. According to Chrysostom, each modern bishoj 
should claim the world for a diocese, or not claim to be | 
successor of the apostles. 

To the sain.- effect, St Cyril, on Genesis vii, says, an apostl< 
"was an mcumenical judge, and an instructor of all the sub 
celestial world; 9 * thai is, he was bo by the very essential natun 
<rf his apostolic office. Every modern bishop, therefore, lik< 
the p'»p<'. should claim the same thing, or according to St 
Cyril, abandon at once all pretensions to be in the apostolic 
succession, 

St Augustine, — De Bapt Coat Don. ii: ],— says, "Whc 
hnowetk not thai principals of apostleship to be preferred 
before any episcopacy?" Thai is, who does not know that nc 
bishop whatever can lay claim to the apostolic dignity, as having 
roooeeded thereto! Bo Barrow understands it, and so evidently 
Augustine meant 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 91 

Bellarmine, — Bell, iv: 25, says — "The bishops have no part 
f the true apostolical authority" On Eph. iv: 11, and 1 Cor. 
ii: 28, he says, according to a note of Dr. Barrow, on page 
24, — " The apostles themselves do make the apostolate a 
istinct office from pastors and teachers, which are the stand- 
ig (i. 6., the permanent) offices in the church.''' What he 
leans, by saying that the apostles themselves make the apos- 
tate a distinct office from that of pastors and teachers, 

explained by the manner in which he qualifies the latter 
ffices. They are the standing or permanent offices in the 
[lurch ; the former were not understood to be so by the apostles 
lemselves. 

These ancient fathers, let it be observed, speak with the 
tmost distinctness, and they do not express their opinions 
oubtfully or hesitatingly, as if they were on debatable ground. 

There is a great variety of argument for the temporary and 
urely extraordinary character of the apostolical office, which 
as not been glanced at, and which can not be without swelling 
lis volume to most unjustifiable dimensions. There is one 
msideration, however, which, in concluding, I can not forbear 

> introduce, and I am mainly influenced in singling it out 
om the rest, because I do not recollect to have seen it any- 
here made as prominent as I think it deserves to be. 

There is abundant evidence that the number twelve, corres- 
onding with the number of the tribes of Israel, was designed 

> be the unchangeable number of the apostles ; and that the 
svelve were to be honored in the church in all ages, as a 
oodly, and glorious, and exclusive fellowship, — standing alone, 
nequaled, unapproached, unresembled. 

Let it be remembered, that twelve is eminently a sacred 
amber, distinguished in the entire history of the church of 
rod from the beginning, in a manner which sufficiently indi- 
ces a special and peculiar purpose respecting it. To refer to 
few of the instances in which it occurs, commencing with the 
oelve sons whom God gave to Jacob, and the twelve tribes of 



92 THE CHURCH, 

Israel his people, we have twelve precious stones in the breast- 
plate of judgment worn by Aaron and his successors in the higli 
priesthood ; twelve loaves of the shew-bread on the pure tabh 
before the Lord in the sanctuary ; twelve princes, heads of th( 
families of Israel ; twelve chargers of silver, twelve silver bowls 
and tivelve spoons of gold, " in the dedication of the altar ir 
the day when it was anointed by the princes of Israel." Th< 
oxen for the burnt offering were twelve bullocks, the rams twelve 
the lambs of the first year twelve, with their meat-offering, anc 
the kids of goats for a sin-offering twelve. When the Israelites 
in their journeying drew near to the promised land, twelve mer 
were sent to search it. Twelve stones were directed to hi 
taken up out of Jordan, as they passed over, to be placed in z 
heap at their first lodging-place, for a memorial of that day 
Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, and twelve images 
of lions surrounded his throne. The brazen sea in the tempi* 
was supported by twelve brazen bulls. In his great trial with 
the priests of Baal, Elijah built his altar of twelve stones, 
Ezekiel, in his vision of the return of God's glory, and th€ 
spiritual house that was to be built for him to dwell in, received 
directions for the altar — that it should be twelve cubits long 
and twelve cubits broad. After our Lord's miracle of feeding 
til.- five thousand, besides women and children, they took up 
of the fragments that remained twelve baskets fall. Jesus was 
twelve years old when he first went up to Jerusalem and dis- 
puted with the doctors in the temple. The woman seen in the 
Revelation, whom the dragon persecuted, had upon her head a 
crown of twelve Btars, The city, New Jerusalem, which John 
B&* coming down from God oul of heaven, had twelve gates, 
and at the gates twelve angek The wall of the city had twelve 
foundations, and the twelve gates were twelve pearls. And 
finally, on either Bide of the river of the water of life, which 
John sa* proceeding oul o( the throne of God and of the 
L " llk WBB ,1 " ,,v l! «' tee of life, which bare twelve manner of 
fruits, and yielded her Bruit twelve times every year. 



ITS MINISTRY AND "WORSHIP. 93 

From this recapitulation it appears, as I have said, that 
twelve is a sacred number. The whole analogy of this might 
seem to be answered in the fact that our Lord, in his original 
appointment of apostles, limited the number to twelve, yet 
iesigning that that number should be increased ; that it should 
yrow from twelve in the beginning to twelve thousand, or, if 
leed be, to twelve hundred thousand, in the course of time. 
[ am satisfied, however, from other considerations, that his 
ntention was, that there should be no more apostles, and that 
welve should be the total count of them to the end of time 
md forever. 

First. There seems to be no room for doubt, that such was 
he impression of Peter, when he interested himself in the 
election of Matthias, to fill up the duodecimate broken by the 
all of Judas. He evidently regarded the place of the apostate 
n the light of a vacancy. But how or why a vacancy, except 
>n the sujDposition that twelve was known to be the fixed and 
Lefinite number of the apostolic college? Why should the 
)lace be filled at all? Why should not the number be left as 
t was — eleven ? Or, if Peter felt that eleven were not sufii- 
ient, why, while the business of electing was in hand, should 
lc limit the election to one, and not choose two, or three, or 
our, or any number of additional apostles that he might judge 
o be expedient for the great work that was just coming upon 
hem ? Why was it, that in his opinion, the apostles must be 
list twelve, no more and no less ? I am aware that it may be 
eplied, that Peter acted upon his exposition of certain sayings 
►f David, which he supposed to have reference to this matter, 
nd which are quoted in the twentieth verse. Granting that 
hose expressions of David had reference to this case, according 
o Peter's application of them, then the questions that I have 
,sked above, in regard to the principles on which this apostle 
xjted, become even more pertinent and forcible in regard to 
he principles on which the Spirit of prophecy proceeded, in 
egarding the place of Judas as a vacancy. — " His bishopric 



94 THE CHURCH, 

(according to the original, his charge, his office) let another take." 
There was, then, according to the Holy Spirit, a twelfth place 
in the college of apostles; and as the prophetic spirit inti- 
mated nothing more in the way of increase, there was no place 
counting above the twelfth. Twelve was the fixed and definite 
number of the apostles, not to be changed by diminution or 
by increase. 

Secondly, I refer the reader to Matt, xxix : 28 — u And Jesus 
said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have 
followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall 
sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" What I have tc 
Bay upon this is, that it is certain that the twelve apostles, as 
such, as the twelve, were to be advanced to eminent and pecu- 
liar dignity in the eternal world. What is particularly promised 
line, may indeed be figurative, yet it can not be denied oi 
doubted that something particular and peculiar is promised, 
and that it is promised to the twelve. But did not our Lord 
know that there were to be more apostles than twelve? thai 
there wore to be thirteen almost immediately after his ascension, 
by the election by lot of Matthias, and his own miraculous cal 
and consecration of Saul? and that the number was to b< 
speedily swelled yet more by the appointment of Barnabas, anc 
Timothy, and TitusJ and that ere long the world was to be 
ful1 ,,r apostles! K our Lord knew this, why but twelve 
throng Win hut twelve of all the innumerable multitude 
" r apostles to be thus exalted and distinguished? If it shall 
h thai this was promised to \\wfrst twelve because of a 
certain precedence to which flieywere entitled on account o1 
flieirprioritj in point of time* and also of the peculiar hardships 
and dangers to which they were exposed as the founders of his 
ehuichjthei) I reply, that although this promisewas made when 
Judas was yet in good standing, he of course is not to be re- 
1 " :,n inheritor of one of those thrones, and there arises 
a serious competition between Matthias and Paul. There is a 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 95 

icant throne for one of them, and for but one. Which shall 
iveit? Matthias — as having been an apostle first? Then 
bat becomes of Paul, who claimed to be " not a whit behind 
e very chiefest of the apostles," and " in labors more abundant 
an they all ? " Is he to share the common lot of such second- 
te apostles as Timothy, and Titus, and Barnabas, and in 
odern times, Ives, and Delancy, and Doane ? Rejecting such 
thought as wholly inadmissible, shall the throne be assigned 

Paul on the score of his eminent services? Then equally 
d seems to be the case of Matthias, who, it is claimed, was 
i apostle while Paul was a persecutor ; and who was one of 
ose that companied with Jesus from the time of his baptism, 

the time of his ascension. 

The supposition that the apostles were to have successors in 
.e apostleship, and that the twelve thrones were promised to 
ie first twelve by reason of priority in point of time and 
bors, meets with an insuperable difficulty in the conflicting 
aims of Paul and Matthias. We deny, for reasons that will 
3 shown hereafter, that Matthias was an apostle, and affirm, 
1 the basis of the text now under consideration, that in the 
irpose of Christ, the number of apostles was limited to twelve. 
7e affirm, that to all eternity the apostles are to be twelve, 
nong all the redeemed, a conspicuous, glorious, unassociated 
wdecimate. 

Again : we invite attention to the fourteenth verse of the 
venty-first chapter of Revelation, where occurs a description 
f " the holy city, new Jerusalem," — "And the wall of the city 
ad twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve 
postles of the Lamb." The question is, why " of the twelve 
postles of the Lamb," if there were thirteen, and even more? 
Vhj of the twelve, if there were thousands and tens of thou- 
inds of real apostles in the church? Will any one give a 
itisfactory reply ? If the same reply shall be attempted as in 
tie case of the thrones, then we press the same difficulty, — 
Vhose is the twelfth name? Surely not the traitor's. Then 



96 THE CHURCH, 

whose? There is a twelfth apostle, whose name is in the foun- 
dation of the holy city, new Jerusalem, — Who is that twelfth 
apostle? I propose the problem for Mr. Schuyler's solution in 
his next book, or in the appendix to his next edition of the 
last I affirm, and I do it with the utmost confidence, that he 
who gave this revelation to John, knew of but twelve apostles 
then being or to be, while the world should stand. The num- 
ber of them in his mind was fixed, unchangeable as his own 
nature or name. 

We infer the same thing also from a text much used by 
Episcopalians in this controversy: it is in Eph. ii: 20, — "And 
are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." That Paul 
here had reference to the twelve apostles who testified from 
personal knowledge of Christ, will hardly be denied. If this 
shall he denied, my argument, in the main purpose of it, will 
not he affected. I affirm, that he spoke of the twelve, and the 
whole current usage of the sacred writers when they speak of 
"the apostles," as such, sustains my affirmation. In every case 
the reference is to the original company of our Lord's apostles, 
authorized and appointed by him. In the text, the apostles 
are associated with the prophets, whose number was completed 
bj M.il.hhi, whom the Jews called the seal of prophecy, 
because with him the succession of prophets ended; and with 
Christ, the <>,ic and only Saviour. The prophets witnessed, 
by inspiration, of Christ a- a Saviour to come ; and the apostles, 
bj inspiration and persona] knowledge, witnessed of him as a 
our who //</</ conic and finished his work. Christ, there- 
fore, is appropriately, and with greal force, called the corner 
• ot l!l " spiritual house into which his people are built; 
while the apostles and the prophets, not as persons, of course, 
bul bj their testimony of him, by the truth which they 
promulgated, are represented a. constituting the residue of the 
foundation. There .-an be no more prophets; there can be no 
riher Saviour; there can be no more apostles. The prophets 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 97 

nished their work, and received their reward. Christ finished 
is work, and entered into the joy that was set before him. 
o the apostles finished their work, and went to heaven. Pro- 
hets, apostles, and Christ himself, as a suffering redeemer, had 
ach their place and their time in the work assigned to them, 
hey stood in their several places, filled up their several times, 
ad inherited their several rewards. Still they all live, in the 
ring foundation of the living temple. Prophets and apostles, 
y their recorded testimonies in the living word, and Christ, by 
is own testimony, and by his omnipotent power and grace 
lling and pervading the whole habitation of his earthly 
lory. 

When we read of the foundation of the spiritual house as 
>mposed of " apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
le chief corner stone," we are directed backward to the past, 
/e do not look for the foundation in the upper parts of a 
lilding, but at the bottom ; so, for the foundation of Christ's 
>iritual house, or for those who laid it by their testimony, and 
>il, and tears, and blood, we look down, through the successive 
yes of its erection, to the foundation's place and time. There 
e find prophets ; there we find apostles ; there we find the 
iffering, dying Christ, and none of them succeeded, but all 
3rsonally immortal in their incommunicable offices, and in the 
ldless efficacy of their several finished works. 

If it shall be said, counting Judas as one of the original 
Dostles, that we ourselves make thirteen, by admitting the 
)ostleship of Paul; we reply, that if it is proper, which we do 
3t at all believe, to consider Judas as ever having been an 
Dostle in the strict sense of the word, who was dead and 
amned before the new dispensation was introduced, and be- 
»re the true apostolic commission was conferred ; still, at the 
me of Paul's enrollment in this honored company, his name 
as utterly stricken from the catalogue, and was regarded as 
lough it never had been there. He had fallen as a star from 
eaven, and his place had become a blank. Certain it is, that 



98 THE CHURCH, 

he was no apostle in the christian church. Paul, therefore, 
was not the thirteenth apostle, hut the twelfth, 

I am not alone in supposing that the apostolic office, strictly 
speaking, was not conferred until the time of our Lord's 
ascension, and that it never, therefore, in any proper sense, 
appertained to Judas. 

Bloomfield, in his Digest, on John xx: 22, has the following 
passage, in which his own opinion is most clearly expressed : 
" Having thus manifested himself to his disciples, confirmed 
their faith, and filled their hearts with joy, our Lord prepares 
to depart^ by bidding them an affectionate eirene umin; but he 
previously, in a very remarkable manner, instructs them on the 
nature of their future office. (Tittman.) These words were 
addressed to the disciples as future apostles, and therefore, are 
to them only to be referred, and not to all teachers of the 
gospel." Bloomfield is such excellent authority with all Epis- 
copalians, that no other can be desired, though other and equally 
good authorities might be cited. 

Having thus considered, and as we think established by 
irrefragible arguments, the incommunicableness of the apostolic 
office, and that it was not intended that the first apostles, as 
Bach, should have successors in the church, we proceed now to 
aotice, as briefly as may be, the arguments by which Episco- 
palians of a certain order seek to maintain the contrary. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 99 

EPISCOPAL ARGUMENTS 

3R THE PERMANENCE AND SUCCESSIVENESS OF THE APOSTOLIC 
OFFICE. 

All that class of arguments which Episcopalians derive from 
Le apostles' commission, and from the promises which they 
reived of perpetual grace, and from the fact that, at the time 
? our Lord's ascension, the whole ministry of the church was 
l their hands, we have sufficiently considered already. That 
te twelve were appointed to an ordinary, as well as to an 
ttraordinary ministry ; or, if the terms are better liked, to a 
resbyterial as well as to an apostolic charge, can not be 
3nied. Let any view whatever be taken of what was strictly 
id peculiarly the nature of the apostolic office, still, it must 
3 admitted, that the apostles were appointed to preach and 
Iminister the sacraments, i e., to do the work of simple and 
rdinary ministers. In fact, they held two offices. They were 
v ostles, and they were ministers in the ordinary sense of the 
,tter word. Mr. Schuyler himself admits this. See his 
Dok, page seventy-two — speaking of the presbytery that 
-dained Timothy, he asks " Who composed this presbytery ? " 
id replies — " It may have been composed only of apostles, for 
e know that both Peter and John style themselves ' elders ' or 
presbyters. ' " He means, that since the apostles were also 
resbyters, there is no objection to the idea that they alone 
mrposed that presbytery. They were, then, presbyters, or 
mple ministers of the gospel like Mr. Schuyler and myself. 
low, it is needless to say, that it can be proved, from the terms 
F their commission, or from the promises which they received 
f perpetual grace, or from the fact of their holding, at the 
me of Christ's ascension, the whole ministry of the church 
1 their hands, which they were to perpetuate by succession, 
lat the apostleship was to be so perpetuated. Indeed, Epis- 
:>palians do not rely upon these arguments. The intelligent 



100 THE CHURCH, 

among them admit that the decisive question relates to a matte 
of simple fact — Was the apostleship communicated? Di 
the apostles, as a matter of fact, transfer their apostolicc 
authority to others? Did they make other apostles? Thi 
is the great question, and we accept of it as decisive. If i 
can be shown that the apostleship was actually transferred, w 
yield the controversy, and own that ej)iscopacy has won th 
field ; if it can not be, our opponents are in that predicamei] 
themselves, and the field is ours. 



THE CASE OF MATTHIAS. 

The case first cited, to prove that the apostleship was com 
muni cable, and to establish the fact of a succession, is that c 
Matthias. I meet this with a direct denial that Matthias eve 
received the apostolical office; maintaining that the action o 
Peter and the other disciples in his case, recorded in the firs 
chapter of Acts, was irregular, and wholly without effect. 
a\ ish it to be distinctly understood, that I assume ground her< 
not ordinarily taken by Presbyterian writers, and not at al 
essential in this controversy. For, let it be admitted tha 
Matthias was an apostle, and what then? — it does not follov 
iliat the apostleship was communicable in any such sense as ii 
claimed by Episcopalians. The admission overthrows a singh 
KgUmeal which 1 haw employed — that based upon th< 
unohangeableness of the apostolic number; but it does noi 
establish the fad of a succession, such as is contended for by 
wir opponents. The case of Matthias is entirely withoul 
rallifi to them, however it it be considered; for — 

Kret Matthias was chosen, not to increase the number oi 
the apostolic college, hut to fill a vacancy. He was chosen tc 
t:ik{ ' ,1 "' plaoewhid should have been occupied by Judas, 
'Hie utniust that anyone can think of arguing from this, is 
thai th.- original Dumber of apostles was to be kept good in 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 101 

Le church on earth, by regularly supplying the places of such 
i should apostatize or die. Peter judged that it was right 
id expedient for him and those that were with him, to fill the 
dsting vacancy. Where is the intimation in all that he said 
• did, that he would have felt at liberty, in any case, to go 
rther, and choose more apostles ? His whole conduct and 
anner show that he was perfectly conscious of having no 
yht to do more than he proposed, i. <?., to fill the vacant place 
' Judas, and so make good the broken number, tivelve. And 
b it be remembered, that even this he did not venture upon, 
ithout being able, as he supposed, to quote specific prophecies 
saring directly upon that particular case. 
What authority is here, for the practice of Episcopalians 
bo make apostles, so called by them, in any number, and just 
lien they please ? 

Again ; Matthias was not understood to receive a human, but 
divine appointment. Peter, and the disciples who were with 
m, did not pretend to designate him to the apostleship, but 
ey selected two whom they judged to be suitable persons, and 
en, in the faith that " the whole disposing of the lot is of the 
>rd," proceeded to determine by lot, whether of the two God 
id chosen. They understood, what we affirm and maintain, 
at to be an apostle, it was necessary that a man should receive 
special call thereto from God himself, and accordingly, to God 
ey made their appeal. 

Finally. The apostleship of Matthias was understood by 
3ter and the disciples, to be derived solely from the divine 
oice, and not by communication or transfer from any human 
ing; for, when "the lot fell upon Matthias," immediately, 
ithout the imposition of hands, which was the sign of transfer, 
any form of ordination whatever, " he was numbered with 
e apostles." He was understood not to receive a communi- 
ted or transferred office, but to be directly called and conse- 
ated by the head of the church himself, just as the other 
'ostles had been before him. 



10:2 THE CHURCH, 

What authority is here, I ask again, for such making of 
apostles as is contended for by our Episcopal friends, among 
whom, whenever it is resolved to have a new one, the clergy 
and the people elect him by their votes, and the bishops, alias, 
apostles, themselves having been made in the same manner, 
consecrate him to his office, by the laying on of their hands! 

It is evident that this case of Matthias, even admitting that 
he was an apostle, does not affect the main question involved 
in the present discussion. By ho ingenuity can it be made tc 
serve as an example for such a succession of apostles as is 
claimed by our Episcopal brethren. 

But, as I have said, I deny that Matthias was an apostle. 
In my sermon on the office of a bishop, page twenty-nine, I 
said, — " Matthias, who, through the hasty zeal of Peter, was 
chosen by lot, to fill the place of Judas, we have no reason tc 
suppose was ever recognized by God, or known in the church 
as .til apostle; and that he never was, is a fair presumption, 
from the tact, that the broken number Christ himself supplied, 
by tin- miraculous conversion and consecration of St. Paul." 
Upon this, Mr. Schuyler remarks as follows, — see his book, 
page l 32 : — u What, my brethren, is the purport and tendency 
of an assertion like this? An infidel reads it, and what is his 
conclusion I Why, he replies, / will acknowledge the bible, ii 
you will allow me to receive only as much as I conceive to be 
worth] of inspiration, and reject what seems trifling, or posi- 
m.-lv erroneous. It' I can attribute to hasty zeal what I think 
10, p itli ( ,ut being obliged," Av., tfec. My good brother can not 
we the difference between denying (hat a transaction recorded 
i" the bible was a proper and authorized transaction, and deny- 
in- the truth of the record Dees be suppose that every act 
oi man, of which an account isgivenin the scriptures, unac- 
companied with a specific declaration of the divine disapproval, 
*aa therefore in accordance with the divine will? Does he not 
know thai the narrative portions of the bible profess to be 
nothing more than truthful narrations? When the infidel 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 103 

taall believe with me, that the bible, in its preceptive commu- 
nications is holy and just, in its doctrinal communications true, 
tnd in its narrative parts represents every fact exactly as it 
>ccurred, then, I think, he will no longer be an infidel. This, 
lowever, would not satisfy Mr. Schuyler. He would have 
he infidel believe, not only that the bible narratives are 
rue, but that where there is not a special sentence of divine 
lisapproval expressed, they invariably narrate things that God 
pproved of. If my very sagacious reviewer would be dis- 
ressed, as I doubt not he would be, at the thought of making 
tifidels, I advise him to be cautious how he recommends such 

rule as this, to be applied in judging of the scripture narra- 
ives. The scriptures narrate things as they occurred, leaving 
.s, in general, to form our opinions of the propriety or impro- 
riety, the right or wrong of the doings which they record, 
ist as we judge of the propriety or impropriety, the right or 
rrong of those doings of men, of which we are personally 
bservant in the intercourse of life. The transaction of Mat- 
tiias' ordination, therefore, unless there is some specific divine 
eclaration to show on its behalf, or some tacit and clearly 
nplied acknowledgment of it, is fairly and legitimately a 
object of inquiry, for the purpose of ascertaining whether 
; was a proper and authorized transaction or not. Now 

defy Mr. S., or any other person, to show either a specific 
ivine declaration in favor of what Peter and the other clisci- 
les did in this case, or any tacit and implied acknowledgment 
f Matthias as an apostle. His name does not occur again in 
le whole New Testament, nor is there, in any place, the 
ightest allusion to his person, or to the subject of his appoint- 
lent to the apostolical office. The apostles, I am well aware, 
re spoken of as twelve, previous to the conversion of Paul, as 
1 Acts vi : 2 — " Then the twelve called the multitude of the 
isciples unto them," &c. ; and this might seem to make it clear, 
rat Matthias must have been there, not only numbered with 
le apostles, but acting with them, and taking part fully in their 



104 THE CHURCH, 

counsels. But, unfortunately for those who would be> pleased 
With this view of the subject, the apostles are also spoken of as 
twelve, after the fall of Judas, and before the ordination of 
Matthias. See John xx: 24 — "But Thomas, one of the 
twelve, called Didymus, was not with them." See also 1 Cor. 
xv : 5 — "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve?' 
How is this? The twelve, if I may so express myself, w T as the 
corporate title of the apostolic college, and the mere use of the 
term does not necessarily imply that there were actually, at any 
given time, twelve persons known and acting as apostles. 

There is a place in the second chapter of Acts, in the account 
given of the transactions of the day of Pentecost, which some 
and among them Mr. Barnes, suppose, does imply that twelve 
persons were then recognized as apostles, and of course that 
Matthias was one of them. At the fourteenth verse, w T e read — 
u Bui Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice," 
etc. But lei any one ask himself whether, if no mention had 
previously been made of Matthias, and the entire record, in the 
farmer chapter, of his ordination were wanting, there would 
Beem to be any impropriety of expression in the place we are 
now looking at. May not the passage be read — But Peter 
standing up with the rest of the eleven, or with all the eleven, 
jUBl 88 easy and as naturally as in any other way? On what 
principle ban it be assumed, thaj; the necessary reading is — But 
lvt'-r standing up with Hie eleven other apostles? If the record 
in the Brat chapter of Acts were wanting, would the language 
here suggest a difficulty toany mind? Most assuredly it would 
not lL ' N .i ,lM * far, therefore, \W me to say that my reading 
of this text is right, and to claim it as proof, that 'after the 
• Holy Ghost, Matthias was wholly set aside, and 
"■" l,,l,lml -'«^^^'tl^:ilH>stles;'asitisforthosewho 
' in opinion to insist thai the other reading is right,* and 
thai the text proves, that after the descent of the Holy Ghost, 
the apoetleship of Matthias was recognized. The amount is> 
,,ia! *■ P 1 ** <•>» Ad be need for proof, either way. On the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 105 

)int under discussion it establishes nothing. I say again, 
Lerefore, that the case of Matthias is fairly open to examination, 
id Mr. Schuyler's horror at my bold treatment of this so-called 
)Ostle, is a mere waste of sensibility. 

The facts upon which a judgment, in this case of Matthias, 

to be formed, are the following : 

First. The transaction of his appointment is unsupported 
f any shadow of approving testimony. Mr. Schuyler him- 
If acknowledges, page 135, that it was a transaction of the 
most importance, insomuch that, it "would forever give 
laracter to the christian church." Again he says, page 137, — 
We conceive this transaction itself had the gospel history here 
osed, would have sufficiently indicated the purpose of the 
-eat head of the church, as to the perpetuation of the apos- 
lic office." Now we say that a transaction which was intended 

hold so high a place of authority as an example, and to have 
ch a far reaching influence, would not have been left without 
me clear and unequivocal testimony in its favor. We attach 
) such importance to it as Mr. Schuyler does, yet we attach 
lportance to it, and can not believe, that if God approved of 

he would have left it without some special evidence of his 
probation. Mr. Schuyler' claims, that the bare record of it 
f Luke, without a special sentence of condemnation, is such 
ddence. I say it is not. This is precisely in accordance with 
Le general narrative style of the scriptures. If what he claims 
1 this case must be admitted, we should be compelled on the 
,me principle to admit as right, every other act recorded in the 
ble which is not specifically pronounced to be wrong. The 
irden of proof evidently lies with those who claim that the 
3pointment of Matthias was proper. It devolves upon them 
► show a specific declaration, — or at least, a clear implication, 
it of the narrative itself, in favor of it; and not upon us to 
low specific declarations or implications against it. 

Second. Peter in proposing the appointment of an apostle to 
ipply the place of Judas, did not act under the inspiration 
6* 



106 THE CHURCH, 

of the Holy Ghost, or upon instructions which he had received 
from Christ. This may appear to be a bold affirmation; but 
it is susceptible of the amplest and clearest proof. In the 
address which he made to the disciples, he professed to give his 
authority for the measure which he recommended. If he had 
had a command from Christ, or if he had been acting under 
the instant dictation of the Holy Ghost, would he not have said 
so ? Is it credible that he would have passed over, in utter 
silence, the very authority \ upon which his proposal was based, 
and contented himself with simply quoting certain passages from 
the Psalms ? Read his speech. — " Men and brethren, this scrip- 
ture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by 
the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was 
guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, 
and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man pur- 
cIkis.mI a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling head- 
Ion--, he bursl asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed 
out; and it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; 
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aeel- 
<l-"na, that is to say, The field of blood ; for it is written in the 
book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man 
dwell therein; and, his bishopric (i.e. charge or office) let 
another take. Wherefore, of these men, which have companied 
wit1 ' **> ;,n t!l(l fan* thai the Lord Jesus went in and out 
among as, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same 
da] th.-.t be was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be 
I intneaB with us of his resurrection." Now I do not ask, 
" ' : " h ,llr P 1 ^ ,,i;lt t,,<i measure proposed was by command 

;IM - °r l ) Am instant dictation of the spirit! but I say— 
S " ,1 "' I ,r ' lflf tli:« »t "'"* not by either of these authorities. 
,; ' • ' ■ '• Peter was professedly giving his authority, andwith 
"" ,nta »*>n of a command from Christ, or of any special direc- 
n "" "•"'» the H0I3 s,,int, he simply quoted two texts out of 

> ; U,?M " N " Proof could be more conclusive that he 
ring his own judgment merely, in the exposition of 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 107 

jripture texts which he supposed had reference to the case 
efore him, and authorized the action which he contemplated. 
r et Mr. Schuyler, and all other writers of his school, insist 
pon it, that Peter acted both by command of Christ and 
y inspiration. 

Third. Admitting that the texts quoted by Peter from the 
'salms, had a special reference to the case of Judas, and the 
lling of his place by another, — although we confess we see no 
)ecial reference, particularly in the first of them — it cannot 
% made out from them that the business of filling that place 
/ the appointment of another, was committed to the apostles. 
he fact to be considered is, that David merely affirms that the 
postate should be destroyed, and that another should take his 
lace, without saying a word to authorize any human beings to 
iterest themselves in selecting the person by whom his office 
lould be taken. Let it not be supposed that we undervalue 
le authority of scripture texts, or that we suppose there can be 
ay higher authority than a plain Thus saith the Lord, found 
i the written volume of the scriptures. What we affirm, is, that 
le texts quoted by Peter, whatever they may have meant in 
jgard to Judas and his place in the apostolic college, did not 
ivthorize him, i. e. Peter, and his fellow disciples, to do what 
ley did in the premises. It is a mere assumption that Peter 
r as right in his action merely because he was able to quote 
lose passages from David. In connection with all the evi- 
ence there is that the number of apostles was not to exceed 
velve, let the fact be borne in mind here, that Christ himself 
)on answered all that was contained in those prophetic decla- 
itions of the Psalmist, by the undoubted appointment, to the 
postleship, of Saul. Let the difficulties also be considered, in 
hich the admission of Matthias' true apostleship involves the 
latter of the twelve thrones, and the twelve names in the 
>undations of the holy city. 

Fourth. This transaction of the appointment of Matthias 
ws previous to the descent of the Holy Ghost, with which the 



108 THE CHURCH, 

apostles ivere to receive power to engage in their peculiar 
work.. This is the great fact upon which we rely for the 
settlement of the present question. Other considerations which 
have been referred to, have weight, and go far to decide a moral 
certainty, that the act of Peter in this case was ill-advised and 
unauthorized, but the one now presented we hold to be final 
and conclusive. Mr. Schuyler has some inklings of the trouble 
to be apprehended from this quarter, and endeavors, on page 
138 of his book, to show that the Holy Ghost had been re- 
ceived, quoting John xx : 22 — " And he breathed on them and 
said, receive ye the Holy Ghost." Is my brother quite sure 
that his interpretation of this text is right ? Bloomfield, whose 
authority as a commentator, is of the highest kind among Epis- 
copalians, says, on this passage, in his Digest, " When he is said 
to have breathed on them, (enephusese,) we are to understand 
it as a symbolical action, by which he was pleased to introduce 
and illustrate the promise before made: for labete pneuma 
ay ion, (receive ye the Holy Ghost,) can only be understood as 
a presi /it promise of a future benefit which should very shortly 
be communicated: namely, on the day of Pentecost. In con- 
ridering this as no other than a symbolical action, all the best 
c>in i,i< ntators arc agreed." Rosenmueller says, — " Labete, — 
[mperatmifl pro Futuro; significanter, ut solent prophetae, cer- 
tittimum ct tam<juam prsesentem pranlictorum eventum pro- 
m it teatee. [taque illia verbis indicator, hunc afflatum ipsis pro 
symbolo ene, unde omen capere debeant de conferendis in ipsos 
propediem Spiritua S. dotibus, quaa morti proximus iis promi- 
'. -ii. w i." Thia is precisely the idea of Bloomfield. Mr. 
Barnes, on the Bame passage, says, "< Receive ye the Holy 
(ihnst; Xhia was given them as a certain sign, or pledge, 
th.-it thej should b, endowed with the influences of the Holy 
Spirit, - Clomp, A.n i: I, eh. i\r I might quote any number 
of commentators of the first class, who all give the same expo- 
si,,,,n - We say, therefore, on the best human authority, that 
thfi Holy Ghoel was w given to the disciples at this time, but 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 109 

a significant symbol was afforded them of the future fulfillment 
of the promise which they had before received. What was the 
promise which they had before received ? See John xvi : 7 — 
" Nevertheless, I tell you the truth : it is expedient for you that 
I go away: for, if I go not away, the Comforter will not come 
unto you." The promise was, that the Holy Ghost should come 
to be with them, after he, i. e. Christ was gone away from 
earth to heaven, and they were distinctly assured that this pro- 
mise could not be fulfilled sooner. — " If I go not away, the 
Comforter will not come unto your If Mr. Schuyler is dis- 
posed to set his opinion against that of Bloomfield and "all the 
best commentators," I trust, that he will at least be satisfied 
with the authority of Christ. I am persuaded he never exam- 
ined this text critically. I doubt if his attention was ever, in 
any measure, directed to it. Still, even if we were inclined to 
indulge him in the use which he makes of it, and to admit 
(which we by no means do) that the apostles had received a 
measure of the Holy Ghost, we affirm, nevertheless, that they 
had not received the special promise of the Holy Ghost with 
power to enter on the ivork of their ministry; for which, when 
our Lord ascended, he commanded them to wait. See Luke 
xxiv: 49 — "And behold I send the promise of my Father 
upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be 
endued with power from on high." See also Acts i : 4, 5 — 
" And being assembled with them, commanded them that they 
should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of 
the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John 
truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost, not many clays hence." Also, the 8th verse — 
" But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusa- 
lem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
part of the earth." Will any one say, in the face of these texts, 
that at the time of the transaction now being considered, the 
apostles had received that ''promise of the Holy Gkost" which 



110 THE CHURCH, 

was to qualify them for their ministry ? What authority had 
they then, to engage in the highest of all ministerial acts, — 
the appointment of a minister ? The apostles understood that 
the command to tarry in Jerusalem until they should receive 
the promise of the Holy Ghost, was a command not to enter 
upon the active labors of their ministry until then ; for it was 
with the promise of the Holy Ghost, and not without it, that 
they were to receive poiver, by which we must understand 
either authority to discharge the functions of their office, or the 
grace by which they were to be qualified for the discharge of 
them. That they so understood it is evident, from the fact, 
that with the solitary exception of the transaction now being 
considered, they did abstain from all ministerial acts, until the 
Spirit was poured out. When our Lord, having given them 
the charge recited above, had been " taken up," it is said, " Then 
returned they unto Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet;" 
and from this time up to the very day of Pentecost when the 
Spirit came, " They continued with one accord in prayer and 
supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, 
and with his brethren," and they did nothing else, save this one 
ad respecting Matthias, 

Now, what was that "power" which the apostles were to 
receive from on high, with the "promise of the Holy Ghost?" 
I have suggested above, the two only answers which the 
question admits of. It was either, first, authority to enter on 
their ministerial work, under which supposition they had no 
right to do what they did; or, Becondly, it was grace to qualify 
them for their ministerial work, under which supposition they 
were incompetent to engage in it aright. One or the other of 
these answers must be the right one, and either of them is fatal 

to lh«' apnstlcship of Matthias. 

It will avail nothing, to say that the apostles had fully 
received their commission, previous to Christ's ascension. It 
is not an unheard of or strange thing, for a commission to be 
rally issued, and put into the hands of the commissioned 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. Ill 

erson, days and weeks before it is to take effect, or before trie 
erson so commissioned is to enter upon the duties to which he 

appointed ; and precisely so it was in the case of the apostles. 
!hrist commissioned them, and specified the future time at 
hich they were to begin their work ; or rather, he indicated to 
lem a sign by which they should know when the time was 
)me. Read the account of their commission in Luke xxiv, 
ading with the words already quoted — " and behold I send 
le promise of my father upon you ; but tarry ye in Jerusalem 
ntil ye be endued with power from on highP 

The apostles either engaged in the transaction of Matthias' 
t'dination by virtue of authority which they supposed was 
mferred on them by the commission which they had received 
om Christ, or they engaged in it as private individuals. If 
ley did it as private individuals, no one will pretend that their 
ction in the premises was justifiable or valid. If they did it 
nder their commission, acting as ministers in the church, 
\ is evident that their action was unauthorized and disor- 
erly, and therefore, of no effect ; for the time had not yet 
nne for which they had been commanded to wait, and they 
ere without the power which it had been promised they 
lould receive. 

Did not Luke mean to intimate the impropriety of this 
•ansaction, when he said, in proceeding to give his account of 
, ? — « Jn those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disci- 
les," <fec, &c. ? In what days ? Why, in those days which 
itervened between the ascension of Christ, and the bestow- 
lent on the apostles of the Father's promise, with power to 
ngage in their ministry : in those days during which they had 
sen expressly commanded to wait, and to perform no minis- 
rial acts. I can not avoid thinking that there is force in 
le expression ,of Luke — " In those days; " and that he 
itended by it far more than is commonly supposed. 

Finally. It is to be observed that nothing is expressed con- 
•ary to our argument, in the words with which Luke ends his 



U9 THE CHURCH, 

account — " And the lot fell upon Matthias ; and he was num- 
bered ivith the eleven apostles." This is nothing more than 
the natural continuation and ending of the narrative. Of 
course, Peter and the rest supposed, when this transaction was 
concluded, that Matthias was a true apostle, and they counted 
him accordingly. By no rules of interpretation can this be 
considered as an affirmation that Matthias was an apostle, or 
that he was permanently regarded as one. He was "numbered 
with the eleven" then, at that time, when the unauthorized 
transaction was finished, which, to those who took part in it, 
seemed to invest him with apostolic grace. 

We simply maintain that Peter, and those who acted with 
him in the case of Matthias, misjudged; and that, intending to 
do a right and proper thing, they did a wrong thing, and a 
very foolish thing. We say this, not having the fear of Mr. 
Schuyler, or of Dr. Shelton, before our eyes, and utterly regard- 
less of the blasts of pious indignation that will probably blow 
upon us from that quarter for our infidelity. The question is, 
When did Peter and the rest receive that inspiration and power 
of the Holy Ghost which were intended to qualify them for 
their work, by giving them clear and correct views of the 
gospel, and of the nature, objects, and duties of their own 
mission I From what point of time are we to regard them as 
foe accredited ministers of Christ, the authoritative agents of 
hifl will, and expounders of his religion? That they were not 
rcvious to Christ's death, is evident from the fact that they 
"™ continually, during all that period, falling into th« grossest 
mM:,k '" N bofll rf OP* 1 **) and conduct, in relation t*> all sorts 
Of lUbjecta And after our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, 
N ; 1 "" *fl "**>wledged theirdisappoinlmentrhaving supposed 
** l ^aa he that should have restored the kingdom to Israel 

■■** ' !l ""'« — ' could not easily be persuaded that he 

"-";■■»•■■'■■ oordiagtohiswo* I; so la fee as this, it is undeniable 
,li:it ,, '">— "thoul ^y of those qualifications which were 
^^to^ethemailthority^rto exalt them in any respect 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 113 

»ove other good and honest men, if such might have been, 
10 had enjoyed similar advantages. Would there be impiety 
saying, that the conduct of Peter and his companions was 
tproper and foolish, at any time previous to their Lord's death, 
at the time of it, or during the days which immediately 
llowed ? Would there be impiety in expressing the opinion 
at they sometimes acted wickedly? Now, as I have said, the 
lestion is, When did they acquire that authority, which event- 
lly they had, as ministers and ambassadors for Christ ? After 
lat point of time do their acts and sayings become authori- 
bive and binding on the church ? I answer, and who will 
nture to dispute me, Their authority began when they received 
he promise of the father with power," on the day of Pente- 
st. They were " endued with power from on high" then ; 
Ld just as really as we are bound by their teachings and 
>ings at any subsequent time, just so really may we, if we 
loose, question and deny the propriety of what they said and 
d at any time before. 
We have attributed Peter's conduct in the case of Matthias 

" hasty zeal." — We do so still. It was just like him to tire 
' the inaction of those days which preceded the day of Pen- 
cost, and to bethink himself of something by which he might 
iticipate events, and hurry forward the great enterprise with 
hich his soul was beginning to be fired. The mistake which 
3 made in this instance was characteristic of the man. 

We here dismiss the case of Matthias, reminding the reader 
rain, that whatever he may think of the question of this per- 
m's apostleship, it is a case which can have no bearing on the 
resent main controversy. It is simply ridiculous for Mr. 
chuyler to represent his assumed appointment to the apostolic 
See as a transaction " that would forever give character to the 
iristian church," and to say, " We conceive this transaction 
self, had the gospel history here closed, would have sufficiently 
idicated the purpose of the great head of the church, as to 
le perpetuation of the apostolic office." Admitting, what we 



114 THE CHURCH, 

have shown was not true, that he was a genuine apostle, there 
is no ground whatever, on which his appointment can be made 
to appear in the light of a precedent; for he was appointed to 
fill a vacancy in the duodecimate, and he did not receive the 
office by transfer, or communication, but by an immediate 
divine designation. We ourselves will cheeerfully acknowledge 
the authority of all apostles, we care not what the number of 
them may be, who can be shown to have received their office in 
the way that it is pretended Matthias received his. Episcopa- 
lians gain nothing, not even for their principle of succession, 
until they can show that an apostle was appointed, not to fill a 
place in the original duodecimate, but to fill a new place, and 
that he received his authority from those who were already 
apostles, by virtue of authority vested in them. 



THE TERM "APOSTLE" APPLIED IN THE NEW 

TESTAMENT TO OTHERS BESIDES 

THE TWELVE. 

An argument to show that the apostleship was actually 
transferred, is sometimes sought to be made out of the fact? 
thai in the New Testament, the term "apostle," is actually 
.••IT 1 '''' 1 to others, besidesthe twelve whom all unite in recogniz- 
ing as invested truly with that office. Thus, Acts xiv: 14, 
Barnabas is classed with Paul under the same general designa- 
tion - M W'lii.l,, when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul heard of," 
**i *& The fiwt epistle 1" the Thessalonians, which is called 
"the epistle of Paul," is, in reality, as the salutation shows, the 
*T mI " " r Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, who, in chapter 
ii: 6, style themselves in common, "the apostles of Christ." 
1" Philippians ii: 25, Paul says,—" Yet 1 supposed it necessary 
to send onto you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in 
labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, (i. e. apostle, for 
so the Greek reads,) and he thai ministered to my wants." So 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 115 

also, in 2 Cor. viii: 23, lie writes, — "Whether any do inquire 
)f Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper, concerning you ; 
:>r our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers (apos- 
les) of the churches, and the glory of Christ." And again, 
Rom. xvi: 7, — "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, 
md my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." 

The argument, or rather appeal, for it is not an argument, 
bunded upon this occasional use of the term "apostle," has - 
rreat weight with a certain class of minds. It looks amazingly 
ike a settlement of the question in debate, to find Barnabas, 
ind Silvanus, and Timotheus, and Epaphroditus, and Androni- 
ms, and Junia actually called apostles, in the inspired record. 
When an Episcopal minister, discussing this subject before his 
congregation, says, — "And now brethren, what more can we 
lesire, when we find it here especially recorded, that Barnabas, 
md Silvanus, and Timotheus, and Epaphroditus, and others 
vere " apostles ? " there is no doubt that nine-tenths of those 
vho hear him are ready to say, — " Sure enough ; what more 
can we desire ? That settles it." But all who understand this 
ubject, know that it does not settle it ; and that so far from 
settling it, it has nothing to do with it. 

The term " apostle" from the Greek word apostolos, prima- 
ily signifies one sent, a messenger, and this is always its signi- 
ication, except in those instances where it is specifically used as 
he name of an office ; and even in those instances, it retains its 
primary sense, as descriptive of the nature of the office which 
t names. In the case of the twelve apostles of our Lord, it is 
he name of their office, descriptive of its general nature ; as 
hey were officially, and in distinction from all others, his mes- 
sengers, sent by him, as he himself was sent of God. Now, 
t is evidently leaping far to a conclusion, to set it down as a 
letermined fact, that every person to whom the term "apostle" 
s applied in the New Testament, was therefore, as a matter of 
course, one of our Lord's apostles, in the high and official 
sense of that word. We must always look, where this term 



116 THE CHURCH, 

occurs, to see if there was not some special reason for its being 
applied as we find it, in some special mission upon which the 
person to whom the title is given was employed. We must 
inquire whether he was not, or had not been in connection with 
the application of this term to him, a special messenger of 
some body, or sent upon some specific errand, or mission, in 
virtue of which the term " apostolos," is applied to him. 

The principle in regard to the use of the name " apostle," 
for which I am contending, is distinctly stated by Dr. Onder- 
donk, in his tract, "Episcopacy tested by Scripture," page 
fourteen: "Another irregularity of the same kind occurs in 
regard to the word ' elder.' It is sometimes used for a minister 
or clergyman of any grade, higher, middle, or lower : but it 
more strictly signifies a presbyter. Many words have both a 
loose and a specific meaning. The word ' angel ' is often loosely 
applied ; but distinctively it means certain created spirits. The 
word ' God ' is applied to angels, and idols, and human person- 
ages or magistrates; but distinctively it means the Supreme 
Being. The word * deacon' means an ordinary servant, a 
servant of God in secular affairs, and any minister of Christ; 
but a christian minister of the lower grade is its specific mean- 
ing. So, with the word < elder;' it is sometimes applied to the 
clergy of any grade, or grades; but its appropriate application 
is to ministers of the second or middle order." Dr. 0. might 
have gone on to say, So also, the word " apostle " is applied 
loosely to messengers of any kind, to persons sent upon any 
particular mission; but distinctively it belongs to the twelve 
whom mi,- Saviour commissioned to complete what he had left 
unfinished of the work of founding .and settling his church. 

I " ■« 'is now apply the rule here stated, to the cases that have 
been cited, in which the term "apostle" is applied to others 
besides the twelve acknowledged apostles of our Lord. 

First Take the case in Acts xiv: 14, — "Which when the 
apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of," &c The question is, 
were Barnabas and Paul employed at this time on any special 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 117 

mission, which may account for this manner of speaking of 
them, independently of supposing that Barnabas was an apostle 
in the high and official sense of that word ? The question is 
answered by referring back to the first four verses of the thir- 
teenth chapter — " Now there were in the church that was at 
Antioch certain prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas, and Simeon, 
that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, 
which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost 
said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto 
1 have called them. And when they had fasted, and prayed, 
and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being- 
sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed into Seleucia ; and they 
sailed to Cyprus." 

Barnabas and Paul, therefore, at the time when they are thus 
called apostles, were engaged together in a special missionary 
service. They had been sent together to do a special work. 
One was an apostle in the high and distinctive sense of that 
word, but in this service both of them were apostoloi, that is, 
messengers or missionaries. The case of Barnabas, therefore, 
is clearly disposed of. 

The next case, is that in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, 
addressed by Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus, who, in the 
sixth verse of the second chapter, are styled in common, 
" apostles of Christ." It is a peculiarity of this case that the 
three together are not only styled apostles, but, as if to make 
it stronger, " apostles of Christ? Now, was there any reason 
for this, if we reject the idea that Silvanus and Timotheus were 
really apostles in the high and official sense ? When they went 
to Thessalonica, were they in any special and peculiar manner 
employed upon an errand for Christ, as his missionaries or 
messengers ? The following quotation from Macknight's pre- 
face to this epistle, affords a sufficient answer: "From the 
history of the acts of the apostles it appears, that St. Paul 
first passed into Europe to preach the gospel, after he had 



118 THE CHURCH, 

delivered the decrees of the council of Jerusalem (Acts xvi : 4) 
to the churches in the lesser Asia, whereby the Gentiles were 
declared free from obeying the law of Moses, as a term of 
salvation. In the course of that journey, Paul having come 
to Troas, there appeared to him, in the night, a vision of a man 
in the habit of a Macedonian, praying them to come over into 
Macedonia, and help them. In obedience to that call, which 
they knew to be from Christ, the apostle, with his assistants, 
Silas (which is the same as Silvanus) and Timothy, went first 
to Philippi, and laid the foundation of a very flourishing 
church there ; after that, they went to Thessalonica, a great sea- 
port town of Macedonia," &c. This is enough. Paul, and 
Silvanus, and Timotheus, were sent by Christ into Macedonia, 
on a special mission. One was an apostle in the high official 
and distinctive sense of the word ; all were Christ's apostoloi, 
that is, messengers or missionaries. 

It is contended by some that, in the place referred to, the 
expression " apostles of Christ " is not used with reference to 
Silas and Timothy ; but that Paul, who evidently was the sole 
author of the epistle, employed the plural form, according to a 
common practice with him, in speaking simply of himself. 
The criticism is not necessary, nor do I think it can be sus- 
tained. Paul might speak of himself in the plural, as " we " 
and "us," but I do not think he would call himself "the 
apostles of Christ." 

Let the instance in 1 Thess. ii: 6, where the term "apostle" 
is so manifestly used in the sense of messenger, or missionary 
be compared with Col. i: 1, where it is as manifestly used with 
its specific meaning, as the name of an office, — " Paul an 
apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, and Timotheus 
our brother: 1 Timothy is here very carefully set aside, and 
the term "apostle" is taken by Paul exclusively to himself. 
Precisely the same thing may be seen again in 2 Cor. i: 1. 

Til- third ease is in Philippians ii : 25 — "Yet I supposed 
it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, my brother and 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 119 

companion in labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger 
(i. e., apostle), and he that ministered to my wants." In what 
sense was Epaphroditus the apostle of the Philippians? 
Episcopalians say, that he was their bishop ; that is, that he was 
over them in the true office of an apostle. So Blackwall, an 
eminent Episcopal writer, affirms, in commenting on this pas- 
sage ! The whole secret is disclosed in the fourth chapter : Paul 
tells the Philippians, that they alone of all the churches, since 
the time of his leaving Macedonia, had contributed to his support. 
At the sixteeeth verse, and onward, he writes as follows : " For 
even in Thessalonica, ye sent once and again unto my necessity. 
Not because I desire a gift ; but I desire fruit that may abound 
to your account. But I have all things, and abound; I am 
full, having received of .Epaphroditus the things which were 
sent from youP Epaphroditus, then, had been sent to Paul 
by the Philippians with gifts for his support. He was their 
messenger, by whom they communicated with their absent 
friend. So slight a circumstance does it take to make a succes- 
sor to the apostles. Macknight says — preface to Philip- 
pians, section 11 — " The brethren at Philippi having heard of 
their spiritual father's imprisonment at Rome, sent Epaph- 
roditus, one of their most esteemed pastors, to that city, to 
comfort him by making known to him their love, and by 
supplying him with money, that he might want nothing 
necessary to render his confinement easy." For proof, he 
refers to chapter iv: 18. 

Take again, the case in 2 Cor. viii : 23 — " Whether they do 
inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning 
you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers 
(apostles) of the churches, and the glory of Christ." Titus is 
not one of those who are here called apostles. The term is 
applied exclusively to certain other persons, whom Paul styles 
"our brethren." As the shortest method of disposing of this, 
I give Macknight's paraphrase of the latter portion of the 
text: "Or if they inquire concerning our brethren who 



120 THE CHURCH, 

accompany Titus, they are persons sent by the churches to 
go with me to Jerusalem, (verse nineteen,) and by that service 
they bring glory to Christ" 

The last case to be noticed, is that in Rom. xvi : 7, where 
Andronicus and Junia are said to be "of note among the 
apostles." This, I have only to say, is wholly perverted, if it 
is supposed to mean that Andronicus and Junia were noted 
or distinguished apostles. It means simply that they were 
persons in high esteem with the apostles, or well known to them. 
Koppe renders the place — "Magna eorum fama est apud 
apostolos " — great is their reputation with the apostles. So 
Flatt, and Bloomfield, and Rosenmueller, and indeed, with one . 
or two exceptions, every commentator that I have consulted. 

There is nothing, therefore, to be made for episcopacy from 
this fact, respecting the use of the term "apostle," in its 
application to others besides the twelve. 



WERE BARNABAS, SILAS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, AN- 
DRONICUS, JUNIA, AND EPAPHRODITUS 
APOSTLES ? 

These are chiefly the persons, who, it is pretended were first 
appointed in the apostolic succesion. Now, the question is, 
Were they apostles? It is claimed that they were. We ask 
for the evidences of it. The burden of proof rests of course, 
with those who maintain the affirmative, and we ask for the 
proof. Is there any record of their call and ordination as 
apostles! Nothing of the kind. Is the term "apostle," in its 
high official and distinctive sense, in one solitary instance applied 
f " either of them I Not once. Are they all, or any of them, 
ever classed with the apostles, as such, in distinction from others 
in such a way as to imply sameness of official dignity and 
Nation '. Never, Is it in proof that they ever pretended to be 
apostles I Not at all. It is needless of course to ask, whether 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 121 

key were competent to do the work, which we have shown to 
De the proper and peculiar work of apostles, as also, whether 
n any other respect they answer the description necessary to 
3stablish their claims to the high dignity which is asserted for 
item ? Not a particle of that proof is furnished, which every 
•easonable mind must feel to be indispensable in such a case, 
rhe fact, which is the very fact to be proved, — and to be proved 
>y such evidence as shall set it upon high and undisputed 
ground, — of a communication or transfer of the apostolic 
jrace, is not even attempted to be established ; but we are asked 
o believe that these persons were apostles, on the simple ground 
hat they exercised a certain degree of authority in the church, 
md particularly that they ordained ministers. In regard to all 
>f them, not even this degree of proof is furnished. What, for 
example, are the claims of Epaphroditus ? We have examined 
ilready the whole scripture proof in his case. The Philippians 
lad sent him to Paul, at Rome, with money for his support, and 
Paul in writing back his thanks, calls him " your apostle," i. e. 
four messenger. And Theodoret who lived not far from four 
amdred years later, when episcopal sentiments had begun exten- 
ively to prevail in the church, falling into the same error with 
aodern episcopalians, says, " Epaphroditus was the apostle of 
he Philippians, because he was entrusted with the episcopal 
rovernment, as being their bishop. Now we know why Epaph- 
oditus was called the apostle of the Philippians, and we can 
mile at poor Theodoret' s blunder. What are the grounds of 
:laim for Andronicus and Junia ? We have seen already the 
>nly mention of these persons that is contained in the New 
Pestament. ' They were of note among the apostles. That is, 
hey were well known and highly esteemed by the apostles. As 
or Barnabas and Silas, the whole pretension of their apostleship 
■ests upon the simple fact that they traveled with Paul, and 
issisted him in his missionary labors. 

Our episcopal friends make their stand upon the names of 
[imothy and Titus. These are their strong cases, upon which, 



122 THE CHURCH, 

no doubt, they are willing to rest the whole issue of the present 
controversy. But upon what is the argument for them founded ? 
On the powers of government and ordination with which it is 
said they were invested. But to govern and ordain were not 
the peculiar prerogatives of the apostleship. We have shown 
that the work of an apostle, so far as it was peculiar, and dis- 
tinguished from the work of an ordinary christian minister, was 
to bear witness, from personal knowledge, of Christ, his doings, 
and doctrines, and resurrection from the dead; and that there 
is not a shadow of evidence that, to govern the church and 
ordain ministers, were powers especially, of the apostolic office. 
We have admitted that these prerogatives did devolve at first, 
upon those who were apostles, partly from the necessity of the 
case, because there were none besides to exercise them, and 
partly from the propriety of the case, because they knew the 
will of Christ. They were governors, not in officio, but ex 
officio; because while they lived they had Chrisfs mind, having 
been formerly instructed by him, and being then inspired by his 
spirit. But we utterly deny that their apostolic office essentially 
included the governorship of the churches, and the power of 
ordination, and we think we have sustained our denial by proofs 
that can not be set aside. What is it then to us, in an argument 
on the question, whether Timothy and Titus were apostles, to 
be told that they were vested with the powers of government 
and ordination ? 

The question concerning a transfer of the apostleship, we 
consider as settled. It is simply ridiculous to prolong the debate 
on that point. The only form under which it seems to me 
possible to continue our discussion, is the following: 

Did the apostles set in the churches a class of ministers, 
superior to presbyters, who, without inheriting what was prop- 
erly the apostleship, were nevertheless to be, peculiarly and 
exclusively, their successors in the business of governing? In 
Other wonls Did they appoint such a class of ministers as the 
diocesan bishops of the Episcopal church? 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 123 

The question is not, Did they ordain other apostles ? — we 
are done with that inquiry. Did they set prelatic bishops over 
the churches? 

I am now brought again upon the track of Mr. Schuyler, 
and I return with pleasure to take up the thread of his argu- 
mentation, where I left it. I recall the reader's attention to 
page fifty-four of his book, where he says — " Here, then, as 
we have shown, we have the three orders after Christ's ascen- 
sion, viz., apostles, presbyters, and deacons." He proceeds, 

" The question now presents itself, to which, of these three 
orders, was the ordaining power committed? That the dea- 
cons were not thus empowered is universally admitted. It 
rests, therefore, between the order indifferently styled in scrip- 
ture ' elders,' ' presbyters, ' or ' bishops,' and another order, 
distinguished as a higher grade, by the exclusive exercise of 
this and other powers." 

Now it must be borne in mind, in order to appreciate Mr. 
Schuyler's beauties to the full, that he has not even attempted 
to show that the apostles, as such, were an order in the perma- 
nent ministry, and, that we have demonstrated that they were 
not. 

" We readily admit," he goes on to say, " that the name of 
4 bishop,' which we now appropriate to the highest grade, is 
used in the bible, as importing the same office with 'elder' or 
' presbyter ; ' but the name is of no moment — we are seeking 
for the fact, whether there is more than one grade of officers 
in the christian ministry ; I care not by what name you may 
call them." 

We will not dispute with our author here. We are quite 
willing that he should look for the fact that he is in search of, 
being perfectly certain that his search will be fruitless. And 
yet this matter of names does not seem to us to be so entirely 
a matter of indifference. It is, at least, of importance in aiding 
us to understand the apostolic fathers when they write about 
" bishops : " because nothing is more natural than to suppose, 



124 THE CHURCH, 

seeing that the term " bishop" had a fixed meaning with the 
writers of the New Testament, that the writers, in the times 
immediately following, would use it in the same sense. What 
we object to, on the part of our Episcopal friends, is, that they 
should so curl their lips, (I had almost used a less decorous 
figure, borrowed from the next superior organ,) at the name, 
" bishop," occurring in the writings of the apostles, and attach 
such measureless importance to it in the writings of the early 
fathers, some of whom were on the stage, before the last of the 
apostles had disappeared. Theodoret's assertion, quoted by our 
author on page fifty-six, we take for what it is worth, judging 
of him, by his belief in the apostleship of Epaphroditus. Theo- 
doret was evidently a believer in some kind of a prelatic suc- 
cession from the apostles, having caught the infection which, 
in his time, had spread itself so widely in the churches. — But 
after all, what is the amount of his testimony ? Simply this : 
that " in process of time," the name apostle was dropped, and 
the name bishop substituted for it, as the name of those, who 
it is pretended, received the apostles' office. This we know as 
well without Theodoret's testimony as with it ; and as his testi- 
mony was not recorded until that had taken place which we 
know of from other sources, it is just as good as no authority at 
all, on which to claim, that while the word " bishop" in the 
(few Testament always means pastor or presbyter, it means 
prelate the very moment we find it used in other and later 
writings. 

On this subject of names, our author furnishes, on page fifty- 
five, a very striking and apposite witticism, from "that distin- 
guished writer and masterly controversialist, Charles Leslie," 
ullir1 ' ' ,,,,lM n:iN,v no object in disturbing. The same may 
be said, also, of another very stale jest, apparently supposed to 
I- OligM, on the analogy of the words presbyter and alder- 
'"""• Before leaving this subject of names, I would ask our 
author, uh.it advantage he hopes to derive from the bald quo- 
tation, eommencing at the bottom of page fifty-six, from 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 125 

Isadore, a cotemporary of Theodoret? — "The bishops suc- 
ceeded the apostles. They were constituted through the whole 
ivorld, in place of the apostles." Does he not know that this 
s precisely the Presbyterian doctrine ? I have no means of 
consulting Isadore, and can not tell whether he used the word 
' bishops," in the scriptural sense or not. If he used it in the 
^relatic sense, which it gradually acquired as Episcopal cor- 
ruption spread itself, according to Theodoret, a in the process 
)f time," why then Isadore was a prelatist, and spoke as a pre- 
atist ; but if he used it in the scriptural sense, then he but 
iffirmed what we maintain to be the scriptural doctrine, and 
jvhat all Presbyterians believe : that the bishops, or elders, or 
Dresbyters, succeeded to the apostles, and were constituted 
through the whole world in their place. We believe that the 
ipostles constituted pastors in all the churches, and, that when 
hey died and went to heaven, they left the churches wholly in 
heir care. Whatever Isadore meant, which I am not able to 
letermine, he wrote, in this instance, like a man well versed in 
he scriptures. 

Mr. Schuyler is now approaching the present essential point 
n debate between us. He says, page fifty-seven : 

"And that these apostles and their successors, who were 
ifterward called bishops, were the only persons empowered to 
govern the church and ordain, can be clearly shown from the 
epistles to Timothy and Titus." 



WAS TIMOTHY PRELATIC BISHOP OF EPHESUS? 

Our author may state his argument. He says, page fifty- 
seven, and onward, 

" It must be evident to any diligent reader of the epistle to 
Timothy, that one leading design was, to instruct him in the 
proper discharge of his episcopal duties : hence in the very 
opening of the epistle we find these words : ' I besought thee to 



126 THE CHURCH, 

remain still at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some that 
they teach no other doctrine.' Here, then, is an express decla- 
ration, that Timothy was to exercise discipline over those in the 
church of Ephesus who were appointed to minister and to 
teach. He then proceeds to enumerate the necessary qualifica- 
tions of bishops or elders, and deacons in the church, and in the 
same connection, adds — ' These things write I unto thee, 
hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry too long, that 
thou may est know how to behave thyself in the church of God* 
— an expression which surely can not be construed of personal 
deportment in the public worship of the sanctuary ; for no one 
can doubt that Timothy had piety and intelligence enough to 
teach him to conduct properly there. It must, therefore, refer 
to the proper discharge of those episcopal duties which St. 
Paul had just enumerated in the preceding verses, viz., his care 
in the choice of proper persons for the offices of presbyters and 
deacons : and this clearly indicates that he was invested with 
episcopal authority. Toward the close of this epistle we find 
more specific directions : l Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him 
as a father.' < Against an elder receive not an accusation, but 
before two or three witnesses' — thus showing, that to Timothy 
was committed the power of judging and pronouncing sentence 
upon the elders. Well might his compeers, (the elders,) if they 
were hi- compeers, and ministers with like authority, indig- 
nantly rebuke his presumption, saying, 'Man, who made thee a 
judge over us.' Bui we hear of no such rebellion. 

M Am] in the second epistle, which was written only a short 
lime before St Paul's death, and while a prisoner at Rome, 
bequeathing it as a dying legacy to his son Timothy, he does 
not neglect to instruct him as to the government of the church. 
From this epistle it appears clearly, that the power to ordain 
was committed singly to Timothy. He expressly charges him, 
»laj hands suddenly on no man.' — And again, 'The things 
t,l;lt ,l,MU ,l;lsl heard of me, among many witnesses, the same 
, '" ,mmt U) faithful m.-n, who shall be able to teach others 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 127 

also.' These epistles were both written after St. Paul had 
called the elders of Ephesus together at Miletus, and given 
them instructions as to the proper discharge of their ministerial 
duties. I wish you to examine these instructions at your 
leisure, brethren, and to see if you can find any authority given 
to one, or any of these elders, such as we have shown given to 
Timothy, to exercise discipline over the clergy, or to ordain. 
The passage to which I refer, will be found in Acts xx, begin- 
ning at the eighteenth verse. 

" But — as we have clearly shown — the right to exercise 
discipline and to ordain was given to Timothy, and as we have 
stated, after St. Paul's instructions to the elders at Miletus; 
Timothy was sent to them to exercise this authority over them. 
Here, then, we have the diocese of Ephesus, with many pas- 
tors over their respective churches, and an apostolic bishop 
entrusted yjith the general supervision, and alone authorized to 
exercise discipline and ordainV 

It is gratifying to have the Episcopal claim for Timothy set 
Dut in a clear and unambiguous light. Our author is aware, I 
presume, that some very distinguished writers of his church, in 
England, have maintained that Timothy was archbishop of 
Ephesus, and some, that he was even primate of all pro-consular 
Asia. But as Episcopalians in this country have nothing to do 
with archbishoprics and primacies, it could hardly be expected 
that an American writer's fancy would soar to such lofty things. 
The simple question for this longitude is, "Was Timothy 
prelatic bishop of Ephesus ? 

Mr. Schuyler seems very confident that he has established 
the affirmative. It is really refreshing to contemplate the 
huge satisfaction with which he announces his conclusion — 
: ' Here, then, we have the diocese of Ephesus" &c. &c. ! 

Let us briefly examine the premises from which his conclu- 
sion is derived. His points, as nearly as I can arrive at them 
by a careful analysis, are the following : 



128 THE CHURCH, 

First. " Timothy was to exercise discipline over those in the 
church of Ephesus, who were appointed to minister and teach." 
He was " to exercise discipline over the clergy." 

Second. Timothy was to attend to the " choice of proper per- 
sons for the offices of presbyters and deacons," which " clearly 
indicates that he was invested with episcopal authority." 

Third. " The power to ordain was committed singly to 
Timothy." 

Fourth. "The right to exercise discipline and ordain was 
given to Timothy — after St. Paul's instructions to the elders 
at Miletus, Timothy was sent to them to exercise this authority 
over them." 

First. " Timothy was to exercise discipline over those in the 
church of Ephesus who were appointed to minister and teach" 
He was " to exercise discipline over the clergy." The proof of 
this proposition our author finds in the first epistle i : 3 — "As 
I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into 
Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no 
other doctrine." " Here, then," he says, commenting on this 
text, "is an express declaration, that Timothy was to exercise 
discipline over those in the church of Ephesus who -were 
appointed" (fee. (fee. Now where does he learn that the exercise 
of discipline was involved in the duty enjoined in this place, 
on Timothy? And where does he learn, that those whom 
Timothy was to charge not to teach any other doctrine, were 
persons who had been appointed to minister and teach?" 
Where does he learn, that they were " the clergy f " All is 
assumption — without reason or authority. It is not known, 
and can not be, who those false teachers were. Macknight and 
others say merely, that they were probably Judaizers, i. e., 
persons who insisted that the Gentile converts should be cir- 
cumcised, (fee. (fee, in conformity with the Jewish law. — These, 
Timothy was to charge. The word in the original, paraggeiles, 
Mr. Barnes says, "seems to mean more than is commonly 
implied by the word as used by us. If it had been a single 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 129 

Lirection or command, it might have been given by Paul hirn- 
elf before he left, but it seems rather to refer to that continu- 
ous instruction which would convince those various errorists, 
Lud lead them to inculcate only the true doctrine." Does Mr. 
Schuyler suppose that false doctrine can be taught only by 
the clergy ? " or, that a charge given to errorists to abstain 
rom inculcating their false doctrines, must of necessity be 
n episcopal charge? 

Second. Timothy was to attend to the " choice of proper per- 
ons for the offices of presbyters and deacons" which "clearly 
ndicates that he was invested with episcopal authority? 1 
las Mr. Schuyler proved, or ^ attempted to prove, that Timothy 
fas invested with any exclusive powers relating to the choice 
f persons for the presbyterial and diaconal offices ? He has 
Lot. In regard to the question of exclusive authority, we shall 
peak in another place. We do not deny that Timothy had 
ommitted to him, for the time being, the general direction and 
iiper vision of the church at Ephesus, or that Paul in the third 
hapter of the first epistle, is giving him instructions for the 
►roper arranging and settling of its affairs. We simply deny 
ere, the soundness of Mr. Schuyler's conclusion, — that Tiin- 
thy must therefore have been " invested with episcopal 
uthorityi" — i. e. that he must have been prelatic bishop of 
Cphesus. 

The apostle having stated the proper qualifications of bishops 
,nd deacons, says, — " These things I write unto thee, hoping 
o come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry long, that thou may- 
st know how to behave thyself in the house of God." Our 
,uthor might have saved the labor of his very profound criti- 
ism on the words " that thou mightest know how to behave 
hyself in the house of God." His own people may have 
>een edified — I know not who else could be —by being told 
hat Timothy was not written to now as a child, to instruct him 
low he should behave in meeting; undoubtedly, Paul was 
riving him directions for the management of ecclesiastical 



130 THE CHURCH, 

affairs, — Who ever supposed otherwise? What then? Does 
it follow that Timothy was an Episcopal bishop ? The only 
explanation which the words just quoted admit of, is the follow- 
ing : Paul tells Timothy that he writes him these instructions, 
not supposing that it was absolutely necessary for him to do so, 
because he hoped shortly to return to Ephesus, and take charge 
of things himself, personally ; yet he writes them to make sure 
that if, contrary to his expectations, his return should be long 
delayed, he, i. e. Timothy would know how to demean himself, 
and to do in a proper manner the things which the welfare of 
the church required to be done. Nothing could be plainer 
than it is from this, that Timothy's superintendence at Ephe- 
sus was to cease whenever Paul should return there. The 
responsibility at present devolving upon him was temporary 
and accidental, owing to the apostle's sudden and premature 
departure. On the passage now under consideration, Mr. 
Barnes says, in his notes, — "These things I write unto thee, 
hoping to come unto thee shortly." " That is, he hoped to 
come there to give instructions personally, or to finish, himself, 
the work which he had commenced in Ephesus, and which had 
been interrupted by his being driven away so unexpectedly. 
This verse proves that the apostle Paul did not regard Timo- 
thy as the permanent diocesan bishop of Ephesus. Would 
any Episcopal bishop write this to another bishop ? If Timothy 
had been the permanent prelate of Ephesus, would Paul have 
intimated that he expected soon to come and take the work of 
completing the arrangements there into his own hands ? " 

Let the reader look at other evidence, that Timothy's charge 
at Ephesus was temporary and accidental. Be it remembered, 
the claim is, that he was properly and specifically bishop of 
Ephesus, Ephesus, therefore, was his field. He was not 
simply a casual and occasional laborer there, but that was his 
appropriate and peculiar charge. There were his duties and 
responsibilities, and there he was bound by his office to be, and 
to abide. See how this view of the subject corresponds with 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 131 

what Paul says to him, in the opening of the first epistle,— 
" Unto Timothy my son, * * * as I besought thee to 
abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou 
mightest charge some," &c. Now, how came Timothy to be 
at Ephesus at all, when this epistle was written? Was it 
because that was his home? Was it because his special and 
appropriate duties were there ? Was it because he was bishop 
of Ephesus, and therefore under official obligations to be there ? 
Not in the least. He was in Ephesus at the earnest solicitation 
of Paul. He and the apostle had been there in company; 
and, when a difficulty arose, which made it necessary for the 
apostle to leave, Timothy would have left also, — as little bound 
to the place as Paul himself. He desired and proposed to 
leave. If not, why did Paul beseech him to remain ? And 
he remained simply and only to gratify Paul's wishes. Does 
this look as though Timothy was bishop of Ephesus ? What ! 
must the bishop of Ephesus be induced to remain in his own 
diocese only by earnest entreaties, and this, too, at a time when 
his presence there was most especially needful, on account of 
the prevalence of dangerous heresies, and the busy efforts of 
false teachers ? Incredible ! We can not think so ill of Timo- 
thy. And for what purpose was Timothy besought by Paul 
to remain at Ephesus ? Was it not for a specific service, to 
repress heresy, and to prosecute the apostle's own unfinished 
work ? — " I besought thee to abide still at EjDhesus, when I 
went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they 
teach no other doctrine." If Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, 
why did not Paul say that he besought him to remain there, 
because it was right and proper that he should do so, to per- 
form the duties of his episcopal office ? There was a special 
work to be done ; a special exigency required the presence in 
that city of some one, who would be likely to command respect, 
and whose name would carry the weight of authority with it. 
Those false teachers particularly were to be silenced ; and Tim- 
othy, as one who had enjoyed singular advantages, having 



132 THE CHURCH, 

associated much with the apostles, and whose reputation for 
piety and wisdom was well established, was besought by Paul 
to remain, and do what he could, to settle and harmonize the 
disturbed affairs of the church. 

It is plain, furthermore, that neither Paul nor Timothy him- 
self had any" idea that this was to be the permanent residence 
of the latter. "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus." 
That is simply, and upon no possible construction can it be 
made to mean more, not to leave with me, but to remain 
longer — leaving the expression of the time indefinite, yet 
implying, as clearly as it could be implied, that it was to be 
only for a season. That, as a fact, Timothy did not remain 
permanently at Ephesus, will be noticed hereafter. 

Third. " The power to ordain was committed singly to 
Timothy T What are our author's proofs of this ? He says, — 
" From this epistle (the second) it appears clearly, that the 
power to ordain was committed singly to Timothy. He (Paul) 
expressly charges him — " lay hands suddenly on no man." 
And again — " The things that thou hast heard of me among 
many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall 
be able to teach others also." These texts barely quoted, compose 
the sum total of his argument. It may seem to be a matter of 
small moment, whether the charge to "lay hands suddenly on 
DO man," is found in the first epistle or the second; yet, for the 
truth's sake, and for another important reason that will be seen 
hereafter, I choose to inform the reader, if indeed he needs to 
be informed, that it is in the first epistle, at the twenty-second 
verse of the fifth chapter. The second epistle does not contain 
a syllable <>n the Bubject of ordination, or of any other of the 
SO-called episcopal powers. There is not a word in it, which 
Mr, Schuyler himself could possibly regard as inappropriate to 
be addressed to any minister of the gospel. — "The things that 
thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same com- 
mit thou to faithful men mho shall be able to teach others also:' 
Can it be possible that my brother regards this passage as 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 133 

•elating to the ordination of ministers ? I think he may easily 
)e satisfied that it has no such reference. In what manner had 
rimothy received the things spoken of, which he was to commit 
,0 faithful (i. e. pious or believing) men ? Had he received 
hem by his ordination? No; by hearing them of Paul. 
'The things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit 
hou," &c, (fee. In what manner were those to whom Timothy 
hould commit them, to hand them down to their successors ? 
By ordaining their successors? No; by teaching them, as 
Paul had taught Timothy, — "The same commit thou unto 
aithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Now 
vhat was it to commit? Was it to ordain to the ministry? 
Te is but a poor expositor of the bible who thinks so. The 
ubject of the text under consideration is teaching, and not 
ordination; teaching, I suppose, with special reference to quali- 
ying for the gospel ministry, which I believe is not regarded 
is one of the peculiar functions of prelates. The best com- 
nentators sustain this exposition. In so plain a case, time need 
tot be consumed with quotations. Mr. Schuyler's argument 
rom the second epistle must, I think, be admitted to be a 
ailure. 

Fourth. " The right to exercise discipline and to ordain, 
r )as given to Timothy after St. PauVs instructions to the 
Iders at Miletus; Timothy was sent to them to exercise this 
uthority over them." 

This our author affirms, on the ground of his assertion that 
These epistles (i. e. the two to Timothy) were both written 
fter St. Paul had called the elders of Ephesus together at 
Miletus, and had given them instructions," (fee, (fee. He is mis- 
aken. The^rs^ epistle, which alone contains any thing on the 
ubjects of discipline and ordination, was written before the 
nterview of Paul with the elders, at Miletus. Townsend, in 
as chronological arrangement of the bible, assigns this epistle 
3 the year A. D. 56-7, and the interview with the elders, to 
L D. 58. Lardner — Works, vol. 6, page 21, Lond.— says, 



134 THE CHURCH, 

" The first epistle to Timothy was written in the year A. D. 56, 
and probably some good while before the end of it." The 
reasons for this opinion he gives at length, assigning the inter- 
view at Miletus to the year fifty-eight. Respecting the date of 
the latter event, all chronologists are agreed. In regard to the 
relative dates of this epistle and the interview at Miletus, Light- 
foot takes the same view. So also Hale, — see Hale's Chronology, 
vol. 5, p. 429, Lond. So also Michaelis and Dr. Benson, — see 
MichaehV Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 75, Lond. 

Hug says, see his Introduction to the New Testament, And- 
over edition, p. 534 — "Paul went from Ephesus to Macedonia, 
leaving Timothy behind him, (1 Tim. i : 3,) and soon after 
wrote this epistle. The apostle was at Ephesus twice; on 
which occasion did this occur ? 

" After his first visit to this city, — Acts xviii : 19 - 23, — 
he went to Jerusalem ; and the departure to Macedonia, men- 
tioned in this epistle, could not have taken place then. The 
other visit to Ephesus is related in Acts xix: 1-41. After a 
long residence here, he was obliged to leave the city, on account 
of an uproar; and then departed to go into Macedonia. — Acts 
xx : 1, seq. The epistle was written on this occasion, between 
the first and the second to the Corinthians. 

" To suppose, for the purpose of this epistle, a later visit of 
the apostle to Ephesus, in addition to tl mentioned in the 

Acts, — one undertaken, perhaps, after his imprisonment at 
Rome, — is forbidden by the circumstances. Among other 
things lying at the foundation of this epistle, is the fact, that 
the teachers and elders of the church, who should conduct its 
affairs, had not yet been appointed. Now, a few months after, 
when Paul returned to Asia from his Macedonian journey, this 
bad been done; as he sent for the elders from Ephesus to 
Miletus, that he might see them in their new calling, and repre- 
sent and enforce the duties of the office they had assumed. — 
Acts xx : 17-28 seq. The epistle must, therefore, have 
preceded this occurrence. 11 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 135 

Authorities of a similar character might be quoted to almost 
any extent. Dr. John Mason, in his book on Episcopacy, says, 
page 199 — " This first epistle was written when Paul was at 
Macedonia, as the learned, both new and old, Papists and Pro- 
testants, agree. And it was after this, when Paul came to 
Miletum, accompanied with Timothy, and sends for the elders 
of the church of Ephesus." 

I know that Pearson, and Whitby, and Mill, have taken a 
different view of this subject, but their authority is nothing in 
opposition to that which I have given. If any minor fact in 
scripture chronology may be regarded as settled, this fact may 
be ; and yet our learned and most candid author says, without 
qualification, and without a word of comment, that " both these 
epistles were written after St. Paul had called the elders of 
Ephesus together at Miletus ! " and upon this fact rests one of 
his main arguments for the episcopate of Timothy ! He says, 
" Timothy was sent to them, {i. e. the elders,) to exercise this 
authority (or discipline) over them" Now the truth is, as Hug 
affirms in the above extract, that, when the first epistle was 
written to Timothy, " the teachers and elders of the church at 
Ephesus, who should conduct its affairs, had not yet been ap- 
pointed." Let it be observed, in connection with this, that the 
second epistle, which was written after teachers and elders 
had been appointed at Ephesus, contains not one word on the 
subject of discipline, or of any, so-called, episcopal power, and 
the worth of our author's statement appears in a proper and 
conspicuous light. Says Dr. Mason: 

" If Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, it must have been when 
the first epistle was written. For it is that epistle, in which he 
is said to receive his pretended charge, of exercising his episco- 
pal power in ordination and jurisdiction. But now, this first 
epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia; as the 
learned, both new and old, Papists and Protestants, agree. 
And it was after this, when Paul came to Miletum, accompa- 
nied with Timothy, and sends for the elders of the church of 



136 THE CHURCH, 

Ephesus unto him, and commends the government of the 
church unto these elders — whom he calls bishops. Now 
surely, if Timothy had been constituted their bishop, (in the 
sense of our adversaries,) the apostle would not have called the 
elders, bishops, before their bishop's face ; and, instead of giving 
a charge to the elders, to feed the flock of Christ, he would 
have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them ; and, no 
doubt, he would have given some directions to the elders how 
to carry themselves toward their bishop. And, because none of 
these things were done, it is a clear demonstration, to us, that 
Timothy was not, at that time, bishop of Ephesus." 

Suppose we were to admit that the first epistle to Timothy 
was written after the interview of Paul with the elders at Mi- 
letus, and that the Ephesian church was fully supplied with 
elders and teachers at the very time that Timothy received all 
these directions concerning the exercise of discipline and ordi- 
nation — what then ? would it follow that all this authority, 
appertained to him singly? On this false assumption, which 
now for argument's sake, we are willing to allow, connected 
with the fact that Paul's epistle was addressed to Timothy, and 
not to the elders, and that whatever he says, he says to him, 
and not to them, using the pronouns thee and thou, our author 
constructs his entire argument for Timothy's exclusive juris- 
diction and power. Timothy alone is addressed by name ; 
therefore, he concludes, Timothy ajpne was to do the things 
concerning which the apostle wrote. On the broad ground of 
such a demonstration as this, he claims, according to an amus- 
. ing habit in which he constantly indulges, to " have clearly 
shown " that Timothy possessed all the powers of a true episco- 
pacy, or, in his own words, with his own italics, that " The right 
to exercise discipline and ordain was given to Timothy — after 
St. Paul's instructions to the elders at Miletus," and that " Tim- 
othy was sent to them, to exercise this authority over them? 

The force and pertinency of the argument may be illustrated 
in a very simple manner. Suppose that bishop Delancy were 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 137 

to write a letter to Mr. Schuyler, and among other things, to 
say — "I charge thee, my dear son, to be very zealous in thy 
work of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments 
in Buffalo. Remember that thou art not to give the sacred 
memorials of thy Lord to any that walk disorderly," &c. On 
the principle of our author's reasoning, might it not be main- 
tained from this letter, that he alone has the right to preach 
and administer the sacraments in Buffalo? Does not the 
bishop expressly charge him ? Does he not say thee, and thou, 
to the heart's content of any one most ambitious for my friend's 
3levation ? Dr. Shelton and Mr. Ingersoll, in such a case as this, 
would surely find it necessary to look after their commissions. 

Admitting every thing that our author desires, in regard to 
;he date of this epistle, it would be simply absurd to say, that 
:he style of it, as addressed personally to Timothy, proves that 
re alone possessed the powers, in regard to the exercise of which 
ie epistle gives directions. We do not in the least doubt, that 
while Timothy remained at Ephesus, whether before or after 
:he ordination of elders, he was the head man, and exercised, 
n relation to all ecclesiastical affairs, a controlling influence. 
His experience and wisdom, to say nothing of the authority he 
lerived from being especially employed as an assistant of the 
ipostles, is sufficient to account for this, without supposing any 
ihing more. It was eminently proper, therefore, that he should 
be particularly instructed in regard to all matters relating to 
:he welfare of the church; and the fact of his being so 
instructed does not conflict in the slightest degree with the 
idea, that, in all authoritative transactions, others participated 
with him, as officially his equals. 

But our author lays great stress upon what he calls " the 
instructions to the elders." He says — "I wish you to examine 
these instructions at your leisure, brethren, and see if you can 
find any authority given to one or any of these elders, such as 
we have shown given to Timothy, to exercise discipline over 
the clergy, and to ordain? 



138 THE CHURCH, 

Now, of course, whatever importance this argument derives 
from the supposition that Paul's interview with the elders took 
place before the first epistle to Timothy was written, is gone '■ — 
for the supposition is false. But even allowing the supposition 
to be true, what ground does our author find here for denying 
that the elders participated in all the duties and powers w T hich 
are claimed for Timothy ? The argument is, that no mention 
is made of any such matters in the address which Paul deliv- 
ered to them on that occasion. But what was the nature of 
that address ? We affirm that it was in no respect whatever 
such as Mr. Schuyler seems resolved upon regarding it. He 
calls it, " St. PauVs instructions to the elders " — as though it 
were professedly a programme of their powers and duties. 
Let any one turn to the place, in Acts xx, which is too long to 
be quoted, and read from the eighteenth verse, and then decide 
for himself whether it was intended as an instructive discourse 
to the elders on the powers and duties of their office, or as a 
mere farewell, and parting exhortation. Almost the whole of 
it is taken up with the apostle's account of his own labors and 
trials, of what he had already suffered, and what he expected 
yet to suffer, in the service of his divine Master, with affec- 
tionate assurances of his love, and commendations of them and 
their cause to God. Of the eighteen verses in which the whole 
Bpeech is found, only one has anything — and that of the most 
general character — on the subject of their duties, save a single 
limitation afterward to watch, and a passing allusion to the 
matter <>f making suitable provision for the poor. Yet these 
are the instruction* to the elder*! and my brother Schuyler, 
and all Episcopal writers, insist that wo shall look to this place 
for a complete list of all the functions of the presbyterial office ! 
It is just such an absurdity as we arc having specimens of, ad 
nauseam) in all our controversy with this school of theologians. 
The famous instructions of St. Paul to the Ephesian elders, of 
which we hear so much, turn out, on the slightest examination, 
to be no instructions at all, in any proper sense of that word. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 139 

fhat, in any case, therefore, is gained toward determining that 
le whole right to exercise discipline and to ordain at Ephesus, 
as committed to Timothy, by comparing the epistles that were 
ritten to him with this address of Paul to the elders ? 

If, however, we should consent to take our author's view of 
hat he calls the instructions, let a fair exposition be made of 
aul's words in the twenty-eighth verse, and what do our Epis- 
>pal brethren gain ? — " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, 
nd to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
ou overseers, (episcopous, bishops,) to feed the church of God, 
hich he hath purchased with his own bloodP If they had 
aen made overseers, bishops of the flock or church of God, 
y the Holy Ghost, we should like to know who, except God 
imself^ was really above them ? Let the place be pointed out, 
l the epistles to Timothy, in which a term of higher dignity, 
r one implying superior jurisdiction, is applied to him. 

In every point, Mr. Schuyler's argument is a failure. I am 
ire I do not speak extravagantly, when I say, that he has 
Lade out absolutely nothing. He does not present a single 
lea for Timothy's episcopate, which can bear examination for 
moment. 

He talks of powers given to Timothy to exercise discipline 
nd to ordain, at Ephesus, after the interview of Paul with the 
Iders at Miletus — it is simply ridiculous. Timothy exercised 
fc Ephesus no powers, which he might not have exercised just 
5 freely at Corinth, or at Rome. Let the reader consider for 
imself, the words with which Paul's first epistle to him begins : 
p au l — un to Timothy, my son in the faith — as I besought 
iee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, 
hat thou mightest charge some, that they teach no other doc- 
nne, neither give heed to fables? &c, &c. Now, did the 
postle ordain Timothy to a new office there, or did he leave 
im to exercise an office which he already had ? What allusion 
J there to the subject of new powers? If Paul had made 
'imothy bishop, for the permanent government of the Ephesian 



140 THE CHURCH, 

church, why does he not say so? or, at least, why does he 
not say something from which that fact might be inferred ? 
Why does he content himself with saying merely — "I 
besought thee to abide still at EphesusV The inference is 
irresistible, that Timothy remained at Ephesus with no change 
in his official character, simply to exercise an office which he 
previously had, and to perform duties, to which, by virtue of 
that office, he was perfectly competent, and which he might 
have performed in any other place just as well as there. 

What was Timothy ? He was an evangelist. See second 
epistle iv : 5, — - " But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, 
do the work of an evangelist; make full proof of thy ministry " 
What were evangelists ? They were a class of extraordinary 
ministers in the early church, who seem to have been employed 
chiefly as aids or assistants of the apostles in their missionary 
labors, — who were sent here and there to transact important 
business, which the apostles, being so few in number, were 
unable to attend to in person. They are mentioned by Paul, 
Eph. iv: 11, in a distinct enumeration which he makes of 
the different classes of persons then employed in the ministry 
of the church — " And he gave some, apostles ; and some, pro- 
phets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers." 
I suppose that they were elders, whom the apostles had called 
in the exigency of the times, to a more general and responsible 
work than that of permanently superintending single congrega- 
tions. They were companions of the apostles in their travels, — 
as it is well known that Timothy and Silas were of Paul for a 
great length of time. Sometimes they were sent or went alone 
into unevangelized regions, to preach the gospel and lay the 
foundations of churches. — Thus Philip went down to Samaria. 
Sometimes they went before, as in this case of Philip, and were 
succeeded by the apostles. At other times they came after, 
entering into the apostles' labors, — as in the case of Apollos, 
of whom Paul says, in one place, " I have planted, Apollos 
watered." It often happened, that an apostle, traveling with 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. HI 

m evangelist, would leave Mm behind for a season, more per- 
fectly to organize and settle the churches in a particular region 
3r city, while he himself passed on to other fields. Thus, when 
Paul could no longer remain at Ephesus, he besought Timothy 
X) abide there still; and when he departed from Crete, — 
rit. i : 5, — he left Titus in that island to set in order the things 
ihat were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city. Evange- 
ists, thus employed by the apostles as their special assistants, 
>eem to have been regarded as very nearly equal to the apostles 
n authority. Apostles they were not ; but in very many respects 
hey acted in the place of apostles, and performed what was 
3onsidered apostolic work. " Hence," says Dr. John Brown, of 
Edinburgh, "while they are described by Tertullian as 'apos- 
olic men,' — Lib. 4, Ad vers. Mar. — and by Jerome, as ' the sons 
)f the apostles,' — Comment, in Isa. ch. 65, — Augustine desig- 
lates them very happily, by a most expressive name, signifying 
iterally, l The substitutes of the apostles who were almost equal 
o them,' — Sermon 46, de tempore." " Sometimes," says Dr. 
3., " as in the case of Timothy, they appear to have received 
m immediate and supernatural call; for Paul refers to 'pro- 
)hecies which went before respecting him ; ' intimating, probably, 
hat it was the specially revealed will of God, that he should be 
tppointed to this office, as the Holy Ghost said to the prophets 
md teachers at Antioch, * Separate me Barnabas and Paul for 
he work whereunto I have called them ! ' We know, too, that 
hey were endowed with the power of working miracles, — Acts 
dii: 6,-8, — and it is probable also, according to the admission 
>f Bilson, a famous advocate of the episcopates of Titus and 
rimothy, that they had these two (other) gifts, the revealing of 
iecrets, and discerning of spirits, (though in lesser measure 
han the apostles,) which served chiefly to distinguish who were 
it or unfit for the service of Christ's church." 

Eusebius says, respecting evangelists, — book iii: chap, 37, 
hat they were disciples of the apostles, "Who everywhere built 
ipon the foundations which the apostles had laid ; preaching 



142 THE CHURCH, 

the gospel, and scattering the salutary seeds of the kingdom of 
heaven over the face of the earth. And moreover, very many 
of the disciples of that day traveled abroad, and performed the 
work of evangelists; ardently desirous of preaching Christ to 
those who were yet wholly unacquainted with the doctrine of 
faith, and to deliver to them the scripture of the divine gospels. 
These having merely laid the foundations of the faith, and 
ordained other pastors, committed to them the cultivation of 
the churches newly planted, while they themselves, supported 
by the grace and co-operation of God, proceeded to other 
countries and nations" 

Let it be observed, that Eusebius says distinctly, that evan- 
gelists founded churches, and ordained pastors over them; — 
which is precisely the work that we say evangelists might do, 
and did do, by virtue of their evangelistic office. 

Now, that Timothy labored at Ephesus as an evangelist, and 
not as episcopal bishop, is perfectly evident: First, from the 
fact that Paul especially charges him, "to do the work of an 
evangelist " there. Second, from the fact, already noticed, that 
he was only induced to remain there by the earnest entreaties 
of Paul, — which is entirely consistent with the idea of his 
being an evangelist, whose field was the world : but wholly at 
variance with that of his being a bishop in the episcopal sense,— 
whose field is his own diocese. It is evident, thirdly, from the 
similar fact, that Paul afterward directed him to leave Ephesus 
and come to Rome, — 2 Tim. iv : 9, — to be his companion and 
assistant in that city, in the place of some who had forsaken 
him. Would Paul, in such a case as this, send for an installed 
bishop of a large and important diocese, and call him away 
from his own special charge? If Timothy was an evangelist, 
there is nothing strange in this; but regarding him in the other 
character, Paul's conduct is certainly most inexplicable. These 
facts of the case are perfectly conclusive against the pretended 
Ephesian episcopate. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 143 

I may add, it is extremely unfortunate for the claim of our 
Episcopal friends, that Paul should so distinctly have recog- 
nized the true episcopal jurisdiction of the elders in his address 
to them at Miletus. We care not much, so far as our main 
argument is concerned, whether the first epistle to Timothy was 
written before or after that interview with the elders. If after, 
then the church at Ephesus was well supplied with bishops, 
and could hardly need another so very soon, the time being 
probably less than one year. If before, it was, to ray the least, 
not very respectful to Timothy to apply his title to all the 
inferior clergy. 

I have something more to say in regard to Timothy, which, 
as it is equally applicable to the case of Titus, may be reserved, 
and said of both at once. 



WAS TITUS PRELATIC BISHOP OF CRETE? 

Mr. Schuyler says, on page sixty, — " The epistle to Titus is 
alike clear and explicit on this point. The care of all the 
churches in the island of Crete, was committed by St. Paul to 
Titus. It is a well known historical fact, that at this time there 
were an hundred cities in this island ; truly an extensive dio- 
cese, demanding apostolic energy and zeal. But to Titus alone 
was the power to govern the church there, and ordain elders 
committed. In the opening of this epistle, St. Paul writes, — 
' For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in 
order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee.' Upon this verse it has been 
asked, — Dr. Thompson's sermon, page thirty, — ' If Titus was 
an apostle, how did it happen that he appears in this place so 
entirely subject to Paul, whose equal in that case he must have 
been ? ' We say in answer, that it is evident from the passage 
itself, that Titus was St. Paul's equal, inasmuch as he was to 
perfect the work St. Paul had commenced, and to ordain elders 



144 THE CHURCH, 

where they were wanting. St. Paul could have done no more. 
He had, it is true, been set apart to that particular field by St. 
Paul ; but he went there with all the powers of an apostle. 
St Paul, further on in the epistle, proceeds to instruct him as 
to the qualifications of those to be ordained, with a particular 
charge to banish heresy, — ' a man that is an heretic after the 
first and second admonition, reject.' " 

When Mr. Schuyler presents this as an argument to show 
that Titus was prelatic bishop of Crete, if I did not know the 
contrary, I should certainly suppose him to be indulging in 
mere drollery. 

The first plea here for the Cretian episcopate of Titus, is the 
extent and populousness of the island. We reply, that the 
labors of evangelists were never confined to particular congre- 
gations, but always extended over entire regions and countries. 

The second is founded on the words of Paul, — " For this 
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should est set in order the 
things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I 
had appointed thee." 

We reply, that the words, " for this cause left I thee in 
Crete," even though the word " thee " had been put in capitals 
by Paul himself, would not upon any fair construction, be 
equivalent to, — for this cause I ordained thee bishop of Crete; 
or, for this cause I installed thee into the Cretian episcopate. 
It is very similar to Paul's beseeching Timothy to " abide still 
at Ephesus." It seems to me to be the common sense view of 
this, t«> suppose that when Paul could no longer remain in Crete, 
having performed his apostolic work there, by witnessing from 
personal knowledge of Christ, he left Titus temporarily, to 
>mplete his unfinished labors, in the organization of churches, 
and supplying them with pastors, a work which, according to 
Eusebius, evangelists were competent to perform. 

Bui Paul Bays, — M tor this cause left I thee in Crete." We 
reply, that probably Paul had no one else to leave there, or 
knew of no more suitable person. No; but " for this cause left 






ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 145 

i thee in Crete," to do a particular hind of tvork, to do my 
vork, to set in order things that are wanting, and to ordain 
Iders" Well, we reply, it was necessary that somebody should 
lo this work, and if Paul could not remain to do it himself, 
vhj should he not avail himself of the presence of Titus there, 
vdio was every way a suitable person to complete what the 
apostle had begun. But how, Mr. Schuyler asks, could Titus, 
f he was not an apostle, do an apostle's work ? We reply, he 
ould not. He could not testify, from personal knowledge, of 
Christ. He could not speak authoritatively, as one inspired ; 
,nd we do not read that he attempted to do either one of these 
hings. Might he not, however, do an evangelist's work? 
founding churches and ordaining pastors over them, were di- 
ectly in his line. "Titus was St. Paul's equal," we are told, 
inasmuch as he was to perfect the work which St. Paul com- 
nenced ! " Admirable ! Apostles, then, never performed any 
rork which could be done by any that were not apostles! 
ftttd if any person followed in an apostle's track, and entered 
nto his labors, he was himself, of necessity, an apostle ! Has 
rlr. Schuyler anywhere proved, that to found churches and 
rdain pastors were functions peculiar to the apostolic office ? 
lave not we proved that they were not ? 

Because Titus was left in Crete, to "set in order the things 
hat remained, and to ordain elders, it follows, therefore," says 
m S., " that he went there with all the powers of an apostle." 
!f he went there with all the powers of an apostle, then how 
lid Paul's leaving him there to do the work described, make 
dm bishop of Crete ? But will our author pretend that he 
Lad, either before or after he went to Crete, all the powers of 
in apostle ? Had he the power to testify of Christ from per- 
onal knowledge, and to speak authoritatively, the mind of 
Prist, as one inspired ! It will not, at least, be denied that 
hese were powers of an apostle. Did Titus possess them? 

Mr. Schuyler finds a third argument for the episcopate of 
Ditus in Crete, in the assumed fact, that "to him alone was the 
8 



146 THE CHURCH, 

power to govern the church there, and ordain elders committed." 
I know of no evidence that this was a real fact, except that 
Episcopalians affirm it. Does the epistle contain any evidence 
of it ? The epistle informs us that Titus was to ordain elders. 
Does it say that no one was to participate with him in this 
work ? 

For a fuller reply to this argument, the reader may turn back 
to what was said in the case of Timothy. 

But, fourth. Titus received a particular charge to banish 
heresy. Paul said to him, a A man that is an heretic, after 
the first and second admonition, reject." Therefore Titus was 
episcopal bishop of Crete. To whom was the first epistle to 
the Corinthians written ? — To a company of episcopal bishops ? 
It is commonly supposed, that it was written to the Corinthian 
church with its elders. In the fifth chapter, a much severer 
kind of discipline is mentioned than this rejection of a heretic, 
and by whom was it to be administered ? At the fourth verse 
we read, " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are 
gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruc- 
tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day 
of the Lord Jesus." — When who should be gathered together ? 
It is enough to have alluded to this. Titus' commission 
against heretics, though it were proved, which it can not be, 
that he had charge of this matter alone, would not prove 
him to have been prelatic bishop. 

Whether any thing is made out for the Cretian episcopate, I 
leave (he lender to decide. 

What is the testimony of the fathers, in regard to Timothy 
and Titus.'' Not a single authority can be found in all the 
writings of the first three centuries, to sustain the episcopal 
claim. So Dr. Whitby confesses, in his preface to the epistle 
to Titus. Clirvsostoni, who flourished in the fourth century, 
in a passage quoted from him by Mocket, chaplain to arch- 
bishop Abbot, says, thai they were evangelists. — Tractat.de 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 147 

Politia Anglicana. Later patristic authorities are of no avail. 
When episcopal usurpations had become the order of the day, 
it is not remarkable if there were found some to make prelates 
of Timothy and Titus, especially when Theodoret could make 
one of Epaphroditus, on the bare ground of his being sent to 
Paul, by the Philippians, with a contribution of money. 

Admissions of Episcopal writers are not wanting in any 
number. 

Bishop Stilling fleet says, — Irenicum, page 340, — "They 
were very few, and those probably not the ablest, who were left 
at home to take care of the spoil ; the strongest and ablest, like 
commanders in an army, were not settled in any troop, but 
went up and down, from this company to that, to order them 
and draw them forth ; and while they were, they had the chief 
authority among them, but as commanders of the army, and 
not as officers of the troop. Such were evangelists, — who 
were sent sometimes into this country to put the churches in 
order there, sometimes into another ; but wherever they were, 
they acted as evangelists, and not as fixed officers. And such 
were Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition 
made to it, as will appear to any that will take an impartial 
survey of the arguments on both sides." 

Bishop Bridges, whom no one will suspect of leaning to 
Presbyterianism, in his defense of the government of the 
church of England, book i, page 68, says, — "The same 
Philip is called an evangelist; so was Timothie, 2 Tim. iv: 5. 
Such was Titus, Silas, and manie other. This office also, with 
the order of the apostles, is expired, and hath no place. Like- 
wise, as wee doo plainlie see, that the gifts of healing, of 
powers or miracles, and of diverse toongs, have long since 
ceased in the church; so the offices of them which were 
grounded upon these gifts must also cease and be determined." 

Dodwell — Paroenes, sec. x, page 404, says, — " But truly, 
that the office (of Timothy) was not fixed, but itinerary, many 
arguments do evince. It was required of him to abide at 



148 THE CHURCH, 

Ephesus, as is testified by the apostle — 1 Tim. i : 3, He was 
therefore, when thus demanded, an itinerary. The work of an 
evangelist, 2 Tim. iv : 5, so many journeyings with St. Paul, 
and his name being joined in common with the apostle, in the 
inscriptions of the epistles to the Thessalonians, are all of them 
arguments for this. Moreover, the apostle commands Titus 
only to ordain, in Crete, presbyters in every city — Titus i : 5. 
He says, he was left there, that he might set in order the 
things that were wanting, and he was a companion of the 
apostle when he was left there. And truly, other places make 
it appear, that he was a companion of St. Paul, and therefore 
was no more restricted to any particular place than the apostle 
himself." 

Willet, in the Synopsis Papismi, controversy 5, quest. 3, 
says — " Neither can it be granted by the words of the apostle, 
Lay hands suddenly on no man, that Timothy had this sole 
power in himself; for the apostle would not give that to him, 
which he did not take to himself, who associated to him the 
rest of the presbyters in ordaining Timothy ." In the appendix 
to the fifth general controversy, question third, he says — " It is 
most like that Timothie had the place and calling of an evan- 
gelist, whose office was to second the apostles in their minis- 
terie, and to water that which the apostles had planted. 11 

If any one is inclined to suppose that Timothy and Titus 
were bishops, one of Ephesus, and the other of Crete, because 
it is so stated in the postscripts of the epistles which were 
addressed to them, it is enough to say, what no one will venture 
to deny, that these postscripts form no part of the epistles 
themselves, hut were added near the middle of the fifth century, 
a- notes, by one Eustathius, bishop f Suica, in Egypt. So 
says Dr. Mill; and bishop Home declares, that whoever was 
the author, he was cither grossly ignorant or grossly inattentive. 

On the whole, the reader must, I think, be satisfied that the 
Episcopal pretension respecting Timothy and Titus, is a pre- 
tension merely, unsupported by a shadow of sufficient evidence. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 149 

Every argument that is advanced in either case, is a bare 
assumption, met by us, not with assumptions, but with undeni- 
able facts, and a construction of scripture texts which can not 
fail to commend itself to every unprejudiced mind. 

Mr. Schuyler, on page sixty-one, makes a quotation from 
bishop Hall, which 1 desire to notice briefly. Bishop Hall, by 
the way, was a most enthusiastic defender of the Ephesian and 
Cretian episcopates. In his work on " Episcopacy by Divine 
Right," book ii, page 26, he says — "I demand, what is it that 
is stood upon, but these two particulars, the especial power of 
ordination, and power of the ruling and censuring of presby- 
ters ; and if these two be not clear in the charge of the apostle 
to these two bishops, one of Crete, the other of Ephesus, I 
shall yield the cause, and confess to want my senses." So 
confident was he, and so much importance did he attach to the 
demonstrableness of these two episcopates. He sympathized, 
I have no doubt, with Bilson, who says, — Perpetual Govern- 
ment, ch. xiv, page 300 — "This indeed, is the main erection 
of the episcopal power and function, if our proofes drawn from 
these ministers stand ; or subversion, if your answere be good ; 
for if this faile, well may bishops claime their authoritie by the 
custome of the church; by any divine precept expressed in the 
scriptures, they can notP But let us hear Bishop Hall : 

" It is a poor shift of some, that Timothy and Titus were 
evangelists, and therefore persons extraordinary, and not, in 
this behalf, capable of succession. Whatever they were in their 
personal qualifications, here they stood for bishops, and they 
received, as church governors, those charges which were to be 
ordinary and perpetual to all who should succeed in ecclesiasti- 
cal administration. As to the title, how will it appear that they 
were evangelists? For Titus there is no color; he is nowhere 
called an evangelist. For Timothy, it is true, St. Paul charges 
him to do the work of an evangelist. What of that? What 
is it to do the work of an evangelist, but to preach the gospel 
of peace ? This he might do, and must do, as a bishop. And 



150 THE CHURCH, 

what propriety is there of these enjoined works to an evangelist, 
as he was an evangelist ? What ! Can they show it was the 
office of an evangelist to ordain and censure? Nay, rather, 
how should those works which are constant and ordinary, and 
so consequently desirable to all successions, to the end of the 
world, be imposed upon a mere extraordinary agent?" "as," 
Mr. Schuyler adds, " it is admitted the evangelists were ? " 

" As to the title, how will it appear that they were evange- 
lists ? " It appears, we reply, from the fact that they were never 
permanently located, but through the entire course of their 
ministry, so far as we can trace them, were employed in evan- 
gelistic labors, going from place to place, and doing the very 
work, which, according to all competent authorities, was the 
proper work of evangelists. 

Dr. John Brown quotes Barrow as saying — " Episcopacy is 
an ordinary standing charge, affixed to one place, and requiring 
especial attendance there ;" and adds — " But evangelists, as is 
stated by Eusebius, after having founded or organized churches 
in one place, hastened to another. It is impossible, accordingly 
to read what is said of Timothy and Titus, in the New Testa- 
ment, without perceiving that they were evangelists; for they 
had no more any fixed charge than the apostles themselves, but 
were constantly moving from place to place. Thus, it is men- 
tioned respecting Timothy, that as soon as he was ordained to 
the ministry, Acts xvi, he traveled with Paul through Phrygia, 
Galatia, Asia, and Mysia,from whence he came to Philippi, and 
after remaining there for a time, he was sent to Corinth, where 
he preached to that church,— 2 Cor. i : 19,— and then returned 
to the apostle. They went together from Philippi to Thessa- 
bnica and Berea; and Paul having proceeded to Athens, Tim- 
othy BOOH followed him, and was, by and by, dispatched again 
to Theeealonica, to confirm and water the church in that city. 
Michaelis thinks, that i\u> apostle wrote his first epistle to him 
u1 "" llr ],ft Mm at Kphesus, after he himself was obliged to 
leave it, Aon xix, 'to re-establish order in that church,— to 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 151 

fill the ecclesiastical offices, and to oppose the false teachers*' 
and he considers it as evident, from what is mentioned in the 
third chapter, that <no bishops had been appointed among 
them.' This took place when Timothy was very young, 1 Tim. 
iv: 12, — or, according to the opinion of the most eminent 
critics, when he was about twenty-six, or twenty-seven years 
of age, and several years before the last interview of the apostle 
with the presbyters of Ephesus, Acts xx, whom he addresses 
as bishops, verse twenty-eight, without representing them as 
under the episcopate of Timothy. And as nothing is said of 
his being the bishop of Ephesus, or of his being bound to reside 
there, so his stay there was short ; for he accompanied Paul to 
Jerusalem, followed him to Rome, — Col. i : 1, — was imprisoned 
there, and liberated shortly before the apostle was liberated? 
Heb. iii: 23, — from whence he proceeded very probably to 
Philippi. And the same observation applies to Titus, whose 
residence in Crete appears to have been short ; for Paul tells 
him, ch. iii : 1 2, that when he sent Tychicus or Artemas to him, 
he wished him to come to him at Nicopolis ;' — and he labored 
also among the churches in Macedonia and Dalmatian as well as 
at Rome and Corinth." 

Macknight says — preface to 2 Tim. sec. iii — " After the 
apostle left Timothy at Ephesus, he went into Macedonia to 
visit the churches there, according to his promise — Phil, ii : 24 ; 
then went to Nicopolis in Epirus, w^ith an intention to spend 
the winter — Tit. iii: 12 — and to return to Ephesus in the 
spring — 1 Tim. iii: 14. But having ordered Titus to come 
to him from Crete to Mcopolis, — Tit. iii : 12, — on his arrival 
he gave him such an account of the state of the churches in 
Crete, as determined him to go with Titus, a second time, into 
that island. While in Crete, hearing of the cruel persecution 
which the emperor Nero was carrying on against the christians, 
the apostle speedily finished his business, and sailed with Titus 
to Italy, in the end of the autumn 65." This, according to 
what Macknight says, in the preface to the epistle to Titus, was 



152 THE CHURCH, 

only about three years after Titus was first left at Crete, as 
Episcopalians tell us, the Episcopal bishop of that island. 
During a part of these three years, he was absent, as we know, 
at Nicopolis ; and it is nowhere recorded in the sacred narra- 
tive, that he ever returned there after going with Paul to 
Rome. 

Now, when bishop Hall asks, How it appears that Timothy 
and Titus were evangelists ? — we reply, among other things, 
by referring to their history, and showing that their whole lives, 
so far as they can be traced in the sacred narrative, were spent 
in evangelistic labors ! It can not be shown, that Titus, in his 
entire lifetime, spent three whole years on the island of Crete? 
or that Timothy was even for so long a time at Ephesus. If 
the scene of their labors was constantly changing, if they were 
always passing from region to region, how were they any thing 
else than evangelists ? To represent them as Episcopal bishops, 
one of Ephesus and the other of Crete, is utterly contradicted 
by the facts of their history. 

Bishop Hall thinks, that the exhortation to Timothy, to do 
the tvork of an evangelist, implies nothing. "What of that? " 
he says ; " What is it to do the work of an evangelist, but to 
preach the gospel of peace ? " We reply, considerably more. 
The work of an evangelist was to found churches and to ordain 
pastors, as Eusebius informs us, as well as to preach the gospel. 
Suppose Paul had said, " do the work of an apostle, or of a dio- 
cesan bishop,' 11 would not bishop Hall have thought that meant 
something ? He asks, " Can they show it was the office of an 
evangelist to ordain and censure ? " We reply, can bishop 
Hall, or any other bishop, show that Timothy and Titus had 
the powers of ordination and of censure vested in themselves 
alone? Or, if they had, is it strange that such powers should 
have appertained to an office which was really higher than that 
of any Episcopal bishop, and which had associated with it such 
eminent qualifications of grace, as no prelate in the church, 
from thai day bo this, has ever, without the grossest hypocrisy, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 153 

been able to boast of? He thinks it incredible that "those 
works which are constant and ordinary, and so consequently 
desirable to all successions, to the end of the world, should be 
imposed on a mere extraordinary agent." He can not under- 
stand, that the extraordinary exigency of those times, when 
suitable agents of any kind were few, and the church was to 
be planted throughout the world, created a necessity for extra- 
ordinary agents. Is it not a perfectly unreasonable claim on 
his part, that the entire system of ecclesiastical machinery 
should have begun to move from the very first, as it was 
intended that it should move afterward, when the church was 
fully established ? There was a clear necessity, at the begin- 
ning, for extraordinary agents to do work which was to be 
ordinary and perpetual in the hands of ordinary ministers after 
things should resolve themselves into their settled and perma- 
nent state. An illustration might be borrowed from almost 
any of our successful modern missions among the heathen. 
But enough is said, and I must dismiss this subject. I leave it, 
feeling that not a tithe has been said of what might be, with 
pertinency and power, against the Episcopal pretension; yet 
assured that enough has been said to satisfy every impartial 
and honest mind, that no evidence is found, either in the case 
of Timothy or Titus, that the apostles appointed prelatic 
bishops over the churches. 



WERE THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES 
OF ASIA, PRELATIC BISHOPS? 

"We come now," says Mr. Schuyler, page seventy-six, "to 
notice briefly, the case of the angels over the seven churches, 
mentioned in the book of Revelations, as confirming our position, 
that the apostolic office, with Us peculiar powers, was continued 

in the church. 
8* 



154 THE CHURCH, 

" And here I would mention, that the book of Revelations is 
supposed to have been written about A, D, 96. St. John was 
the only one of the apostles then living. It must have been 
about thirty years after Timothy was appointed bishop of Ephe- 
sus. In this book, Christ, through his servant John, addresses 
the angel of the church at Ephesus. Of the word ' angel,' we 
would here remark, that its literal meaning is a messenger, and 
as sanctioned by general use, a chief messenger. So with the 
word ' apostle,' and though the words are different, yet having 
the same meaning, how natural the inference, that in the pre- 
sent case they imply the same office. But the meaning of the 
word is evident from the context. Each of these angels is 
addressed as an officer of the church, and is commanded or 
censured, singly, for the condition of the particular church over 
which each individual presides. As in the epistle to the angel 
of the church at Pergamos, Christ declares — i I have a few 
things against thee, because thou hast them there that hold the 
doctrine of Balaam,' &c. Here, then, we have an individual 
officer publicly censured, and that, too, by the great head of 
the churchy for permitting heretical teaching, as though he 
alone was responsible for this sin. Now, why is this, unless 
this officer had the supreme authority entrusted to him ? Had 
there been at this time, presbyters, ruling in the churches, 
would not the address have been made to them, in their associ- 
ate capacity ? When administering his censure for suffering 
heretics to remain in the church, as in the epistle to the church 
at Pergamos, would not the address have been to the body of 
the elders, by their official name ? But as we have seen, this m 
not the case. There is but one person addressed : ' I have a 
few things against thee] &c. Again ; ' So hast thou also them 
that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes ; ' and the same mode 
of address is preserved throughout all the epistles. But let me 
call your attention particularly to what is said to the angel of 
Ephesus. In our last discourse, we proved (!) to you that 
Timothy was placed over this church with authority superior to 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 155 

that of presbyters — that he was to rule and govern the church, 
and administer discipline as well upon elders as private mem- 
bers. At that time, there were many elders at Ephesus, as is 
evident from the gospel history; and as Christianity spread with 
astonishing rapidity, in the early ages of the church, there must 
have been a great multitude of believers in the large city of 
Ephesus, and many churches, with their respective ministers, 
after the lapse of thirty years. Yet we find the epistle directed 
to the angel of the church at Ephesus, just as St. Paul ad- 
dressed his epistle to Timothy. And with what powers do we 
find this officer or angel, invested? with the same powers 
entrusted to Timothy. Christ especially commends him, for 
having enforced his authority in exercising discipline upon 
those, who, it would seem, had claimed to be apostles, without 
any proper warrant; thus clearly proving, that he, i. e. the 
angel at Ephesus, was an apostle, and that there were still true 
apostles in the church ; for had not he been an apostle, he 
would have had no authority to try their claims; and had 
there not been true apostles, there would have been no necessity 
for instituting proceedings to detect the false. These are the 
words of the address to the angel at Ephesus: <I know thy 
works and labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear 
them which are evil, and thou hast tried them which say they 
are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars.' Here, 
then, is an officer above all other ministers, occupying the po- 
sition, and exerting the same authority over the churches in 
Ephesus, which the bishops of the Episcopal church do in their 
respective dioceses. Who, then, can doubt, that the angel here 
addressed, was the bishop of the church ? And in confirmation 
of this position, we quote the learned ecclesiastical historian, 
Mosheim, and who, we would remark, is not an Episcopalian. 
He says, (VidaPs Translation, Com. on first three centuries, pp. 
227, 228,) — 'In support of this opinion, that episcopacy was 
established during the lifetime of the apostles, and with their 
approbation, we are supplied with an argument of such strength, 



156 THE CHURCH, 

in those angels to whom St. John addressed the epistles, whichj 
by the command of our Saviour himself, he sent to the seven 
churches in Asia, as the Presbyterians, as they are termed, let 
them labor and strive as they may, will never be able to overcome. 
It must be evident to every one, even on a cursory perusal of the 
epistles to which we refer, that those who are therein termed 
angels, were persons possessing such a degree of authority in 
their respective churches, as enabled them to mark with merited 
disgrace, whatever might appear to be deserving of reprehen- 
sion ; and also to give due countenance and encouragement to 
every thing that was virtuous and commendable.' In addition 
to this, we have the testimony of Ignatius, who was conversant 
with the apostles, and ordained by one of them, bishop of An- 
tioch, that after Timothy, Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus, 
and was probably the angel to whom the epistle was addressed." 

Before replying to Mr. Schuyler's reasoning in this passage^ 
I have something to say in regard to the two authorities with 
which he closes it. The testimony of Ignatius amounts to 
nothing; for the only rational supposition is, that he uses the 
term " bishop " in the sense in which it is admitted the apostles 
used it. Theodoret, in the fourth century, speaks of a change 
in the manner of employing this word, which had been grad- 
ually introduced after the days of the apostles. He says, " in 
process of time, the name l apostle ' was left to those who were 
truly apostles ; and the name of bishop restrained to those who 
were anciently called apostles." It is evident, therefore, that 
Ignatius, who, our author says, was " conversant with the apos- 
tles, and ordained by one of them, bishop of Antioch," employed 
the term " bishop," not in its modern, but in its primitive and 
scriptural sense. We may judge, also, what kind of a bishop 
he himself was made at Antioch — not a diocesan prelate, but 
a simple pastor. 

The testimony from Mosheim, quoted by bishop Ravenscroft, 
from Vidal's Translation, is something new. I own that I 
have never read Mosheim in the original Latin, but I am 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 157 

familiar with the two best, and I believe only English transla- 
tions that have ever been made, — Maclaine's and Murdochs,— 
and the passage cited is as strange to me as though it had been 
quoted from a work written yesterday. Neither Murdock nor 
Maclaine have any thing to which it bears even a resemblance; 
and I have no sort of hesitation in pronouncing it a forgery. 
That Mosheim could not have been the author of it, I will 
prove by quotations from Murdock, showing that he did not 
believe what is here ascribed to him. 

Book I, Century 1, Part 2, chap, ii, sec. 2,— "In this 
manner, christians managed ecclesiastical affairs so long as their 
congregations were small, or not very numerous* Three or 
four presbyters, men of gravity and holiness, placed over those 
little societies, could easily proceed with harmony, and needed 
no head or president. But when the churches became larger, 
and the number of presbyters and deacons, as well as the 
amount of duties to be performed, was increased, it became 
necessary that the council of presbyters should have a president, 
a man of distinguished gravity and prudence, who should dis- 
tribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and be as it 
were the central point of the whole society. He was, at first, 
denominated the angel, (Rev, ii and hi,); but afterward the 
bishop — a title of Grecian derivation, and indicative of his 
principal business. It would seem that the church of Jerusa- 
lem, when grown very numerous, after the dispersion of the 
apostles among foreign nations, was the first to elect such a 
president, and that other churches in process of time followed 
the example/ ' 

Sec. 12. — "But whoever supposes that the bishops of this 
first and golden age of the church, corresponded with the 
bishops of the following centuries, must blend and confound 
characters that are very different* For in this century and the 
next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might 
ordinarily be contained in a private house ; nor was he its lord, 
but was in reality its minister or servant; he instructed the 



158 THE CHURCH, 

people, conducted all parts of public worship, attended on the 
sick and necessitous in person, and what he was unable thus to 
perform, he committed to the care of the presbyters ; but was 
without power to ordain, or to determine any thing, except 
with the concurrence of the presbyters and the brotherhood." 

If Mosheim wrote this, will the reader believe that he ever 
wrote the passage quoted upon the authority of bishop Ravens- 
croft, from Yidal ? 

What does he say in the two sections which I have just 
given from him ? The following things : 

First. That in the beginning, the ministry of each church 
was committed exclusively to three or four presbyters. 

Second. That in process of time, as the churches grew, it 
became necessary that one should assume a presidency over the 
rest, and have the sole charge of public worship, &c., &c; — 
precisely as is now 'the case in every Presbyterian church, where 
the pastor is president of a board of elders. 

Third. That this president of the board of elders was at first 
called the angel of the church, (as in Rev. ii and hi), and 
afterward bishop. 

Fourth. That during the first two centuries a bishop had 
charge only of a single church, which might ordinarily be con- 
tained in a private house. And 

Fifth. That he was nothing more than a presbyterian pastor, 
with no power to ordain, or to determine any thing without the 
concurrence of the presbyters and the brotherhood. 

In regard to the angels of the churches, Mosheim affirms 
precisely what we believe : that they were the presiding officers, 
or pastors, as unlike a modern diocesan bishop as they were 
unlike a Romish cardinal or a pope. Mosheim continues, 

Sec. 13. — "It was not long, however, (that is, after the first 
two centuries,) before the extent of episcopal jurisdiction and 
power was enlarged, for the bishops who lived in the cities, 
either by their own labors, or by those of their presbyters, 
gathered new churches in the neighboring villages and hamlets: 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 159 

and these churches continuing under the protection and care of 
the bishops, (i. e. pastors,) by whose ministry or procurement, 
they had received Christianity, ecclesiastical provinces were 
gradually formed, which the Greeks afterward denominated 
dioceses. The persons to whom the city bishops (or pastors) 
committed the government and instruction of these village and 
rural churches, were called rural bishops or chorepiscopi, that 
is, bishops of the suburbs and fields, They were an interme- 
diate class between the bishops (or pastors) and the presbyters; 
being inferior to the former, because subject to them, and supe- 
rior to the latter, because intrusted with discretionary and 
permanent power, and performing nearly all the functions of 
bishops." 

The reader will perceive that the term presbyter or elder is 
applied here by Mosheim, to those associated with the pastor, 
not in the performance of ministerial functions, but in the 
government of the church merely. 

The fact which this historian states, in regard to the first 
insidious advances toward diocesan episcopacy, which began 
after the close of the second century, is in precise accordance 
with our own understanding of this subject. It was most 
natural that things should take that course, and most natural, 
also, that the influence and power thus acquired by the city 
pastors should lead as they did eventually, to farther results in 
the same direction. 

Mosheim, on Century II, Part 2, chapter ii, sec. 1, says as 
follows : 

"The form of church government which began to exist in 
the preceding century was more industriously established and 
confirmed in all its parts. One president or bishop (i. e. pastor) 
presided over each church. He was created by the common 
suffrage of the whole people. With the presbyters (/. e. the 
ruling elders) for his council, whose number w T as not fixed ; it 
was his business to watch over the interests of the whole church, 
and to assign to each presbyter his station. (Let it be observed, 



160 THE CHURCH, 

this was in a single church, or congregation.) Subject to the 
bishop (or pastor) and also to the presbyters, were the servants 
Or deacons." 

A more exact account of the organization of a presbyterian 
church could not be written. 

Section 2. — " During a great part of this century, all the 
churches continued to be, as at first/ independent of each other ; 
or were connected by no consociations or confederations. Each 
church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing 
itself by its own laws, enacted, or at least sanctioned by the 
people* But, in process of time, it became customary for all 
the christian churches within the same province, to unite and 
form a sort of larger society or commonwealth ; and in the 
manner of confederated republics, to hold conventions at stated 
times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the 
whole confederation." 

Let Mosheim speak again on century iii, — Part 2, ch. ii, sec. 
3, — "Yet, while the ancient mode of church government 
seemed in general to remain unaltered, there was a gradual 
deflection from its rules, and an approximation toward the form 
of a monarchy. For the bishop claimed much higher authority 
and power than before, and encroached more and more upon 
the rights, not only of the brotherhood, but also of the presby- 
ters, and to give plausibility to these usurpations, they advanced 
new doctrines concerning the church and the episcopal office ; 
which, however, were so obscure for the most part, that it 
would seem they did not themselves understand them. The 
principal author of these innovations was Cyprian, the most 
bold and strenuous defender of Episcopal power that had then 
arisen in the church. Yet he was not uniform and consistent; 
for in times of difficulty, when urged by necessity, he could 
give up his pretensions, and submit every thing to the judgment 
and authority of the church." 

Sec. 4. — u This change in the form of ecclesiastical govern- 
ment, was followed by a corrupt state of the clergy; for 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 161 

although examples of primitive piety and virtue were not 
wanting, yet many were addicted to dissipation, arrogance, 
voluptuousness, contention, and other vices," &c. &c. 

There is not the shadow of a doubt, that during the first 
two centuries, the term " bishop " was used in the scriptural 
sense exactly, and that bishops were simply pastors of single 
churches. They were presbyter pastors, chosen by the people? 
having the exclusive power and right to conduct public wor- 
ship, and administer the sacraments, but associated, in the 
government of the churches, with a board of presbyters. 

If Mr. Schuyler had ever read Mosheim, I think he could 
not have so imposed upon himself as to offer us this passage, 
quoted by bishop Ravenscroft from Yidal, for a veritable pas- 
sage from that author. Why does he make a second-hand 
quotation from an obscure and inaccessible writer, probably a 
French Papist, when he might so easily quote, for himself, 
from Murdock, or Maclaine, either of whom is well accredited 
as a reliable translator ? 

But now for the main subject under present debate. We 
affirm, that the angels of the churches were simply, according 
to Mosheim's statement of the use of the term " angel," pastors, 
and nothing more ; bishops in the scriptural sense, of single 
congregations ; as unlike modern diocesan bishops as they well 
could be. 

Our arguments, direct and negative, are the following : 

First. We reason from the source from whence the term 
" angel " was derived. Let Dr. Lightfoot, an Episcopalian, and 
a man who, it will be confessed, had few equals in scriptural 
knowledge and Jewish learning, speak for us, on this point, I 
quote from volume ii, of his works, page 133, — " Besides these 
(the three rulers of the synagogue) there was the public minis- 
ter of the synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care about 
the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, if there were 
not others to discharge that office. This person was called 
Sheliach Zibbor, the angel of the church, and the Chazon or 



162 THE CHURCH, 

bishop of the congregation. Certainly the signification of the 
word bishop, or angel of the church, had been determined with 
less noise, if recourse had been made to the proper fountains, 
and men had not vainly disputed about the meaning of words, 
taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the 
temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted 
the worship and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, 
which was moral, into the christian church ; to wit, the public 
ministry, public prayers, reading of God's word, and preach- 
ing, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the gospel were 
the very same, the angel of the church, and the bishop, which 
belonged to the ministers in the synagogues." 

Be it observed, the Sheliach Zibbor, angel, or bishop of the 
synagogue, was simply the president of the synagogue to which 
he was attached, having no authority beyond its particular 
limits, associated, in the general government of that synagogue, 
with three other rulers. Not only, therefore, is no proof 
obtained, that the term angel was applied in the christian 
church to an officer having authority over many congregations 
and their ministers ; but the whole proof from the origin of 
the title is, that it was applied to the pastor of a single con- 
gregation, associated in the government of the same with 
others. Says Dr. John Dick, vol. ii, page 471 — "It (angel) 
is a name not of order, but of office, which was given by 
the Jews to the president of their synagogues, and chiefly 
for this reason, that he offered up prayers to God in the name 
of the assembly. This being known to be the sense in which 
the ward was understood by the Jews, John, who was himself 
a .lew, naturally applied it to the president of a christian 
cliurcli, <>r the minister who officiated in holy things, and acted 
as intercessor with God for the people. The utmost which can 
be fairly inferred is th;.t in each of the Asiatic churches there 
was a person who held the first place. But Episcopalians can 
derive no advantage from (his circumstance, because Presby- 
terians hold, that in every congregation there is, or ought to be, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 163 

one person at least who is superior to the rest, and to whom it 
pertains to conduct the public offices of religion." 

The learned Origen, A. D. 230, — De Orat., sec. 34 — 
affirms, that the angels of the churches were the presiding 
presbyters (proestotes) and the same opinion, according to 
Coleman — see Apostolical and Primitive Church, page 159 — 
was expressed before him, by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and 
Clemens Alexandrinus. 

What Mr. Schuyler says of the primary sense of the word 
? angel " is true enough. But why did he not tell us how it 
same to be applied as it is in the epistles on which his present 
argument is founded ? Did he not know that the true way to 
ascertain its meaning in these places, is to inquire what import 
the word had as a title, or name of office among the Jews ? 
If he knew how the word came to be used by John, was it 
honest in him to withhold the facts, and content himself with 
the bald statement, that " its literal meaning is messenger, and, 
as sanctioned by general use, a chief messenger ? " 

Second. It can not be shown that the churches to which these 
angels ministered were not single believing congregations. 

Our author, having nothing in view but the making out of a 
case, displays a boldness of assumption to which few men 
would be equal. He says — " At that time, (that is, when 
Timothy was left at Ephesus) there were many elders at 
Ephesus, as is evident from the gospel history; and as Chris- 
tianity spread with astonishing rapidity, in the early ages of 
the church, there must have been a great multitude of believers 
in the large city of Ephesus, and many churches, with their 
respective ministers, after the lapse of thirty years." 

The reader perceives that this is a mere fancy.—" There 
must have been!" Is our author to build an argument, and 
prove his case, on a mere supposition? What is the fact? Is 
it known that there were " many churches, with their respective 
ministers," at Ephesus, at the time these messages were sent? 
We do not want guesses, but proof. That there were many 



164 THE CHURCH, 

elders there, is not such proof as we require. This does not 
establish the fact that there were many churches ; for accord- 
ing to the testimony of Mosheim, there was always an indefinite 
plurality of elders in one church ; and at first, until the necessity 
arose, on account of the growing number of believers, they per- 
formed the whole work of the ministry in common. I do not 
myself suppose, that the distinction of teaching and ruling elders 
existed at the very first establishment of that order in the 
church, but the evidence is irresistible, that it grew up under 
the eye of the apostles, and was approved of, and confirmed by 
them. The term bishop was originally applied to all elders; 
but in the very time of the apostles it came to be applied, in 
each church, to that elder who was chosen by the people to act 
as president, and to perform, in a special manner, the duties of 
the pastoral office. It is true, indeed, that there were many 
elders in the church of Ephesus long after the first epistle to 
Timothy was written ; and Paul, in addressing them, calls them 
all bishops; but this is as far from proving that there were 
many churches, or that these elders were ministers of different 
congregations, as it is from proving that there were many dio- 
ceses and many prelates. It is not to be supposed that in the 
very first instance each church was organized and furnished 
with a ministry, precisely as it was intended it should be after- 
ward. Qualified persons, to assume the presidency or pastoral 
charge of the churches, at the first, were not always to be found, 
and it was, therefore, in this respect, a matter of necessity that 
this perfection of order should be waited for, until such time as 
it could be supplied. 

Dr. Snodgrass, in his work on "Apostolical Succession," page 
1(50, says, " Erroneous opinions, in regard to the extent of these 
andenl churches, lies at the foundation of much of the false 
reasoning which occurs in support of prelacy. And for the 
purpose of Betting this matter before you in its true light, I ask 
your attention to the testimony of one, who was qualified to 
judge, and who will not be suspected of a disposition to crowd 



ITS MINISTRY AOT> WORSHIP. 165 

Episcopacy out of its proper place. I refer to sir Peter King, 
nephew of the celebrated Mr. Locke, and lord high chancellor 
of England. As the result of his careful inquiry into the con- 
stitution, <fec, of the church for the first three hundred years, 
he confesses there was, then, < but one bishop to a church,' and 
'but one church to a bishop;' and that 'the bishop's cure was 
never called a diocese ; but was usually a parish no larger than 
our parishes.' In regard to Ephesus, in particular, he says, — 
' as for the diocese of Ephesus, there was but one altar, or com- 
munion table, in its whole territory, at which they all commu- 
nicated together ; whence they are said to break one bread.' — 
' The members of this church could also meet together in one 
place, to send up their joint prayers to God in Christ: and 
therefore Ignatius condemns all those of that diocese, who did 
not assemble together in that one place with the rest of the 
members thereof; to send up their prayers to God.' ' So that, 
if to communicate together, and to pray together, be the marks 
of a particular church, then this bishopric was one.' He takes 
the same ground in regard to the churches at Smyrna, at 
Philadelphia, &c; and his opinion is corroborated by other 
respectable authorities, which we might adduce." 

If Mr. Schuyler desires to prove that the " angel of the 
church at Ephesus," was a prelatic bishop, it is indispensable 
that he should prove, and not suppose, that the church at 
Ephesus was composed of many distinct congregations with 
their several ministers. He can neither prove it, nor show 
such evidence as may serve for the ground of a rational 
presumption. 

It may be observed that it is only in the case of the Ephe- 
sian church that there is even a pretext for setting up this 
claim ; and the pretext in this instance is palpably insufficient 

Third. Suppose it should be conceded that there were 
many churches in Ephesus, with their several pastors, and that 
the same was true of Loadicea, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, 
Philadelphia, and Smyrna — what then ? Does it follow, that 



166 THE CHURCH, 

the angel addressed, was bishop over them all ? or, may we 
conclude, that under the general denomination of " the angel," 
each pastor was addressed alike ? Are we, of necessity, to sup- 
pose that " the angel " represents, absolutely, one person, and 
no more ? Then I reply, it becomes impossible to concede that 
there was in each city a plurality of congregations, — for the 
necessity is just the same of supposing that each candlestick is 
one church, as of supposing that each star, or angel, is one 
person. Ch. i: 20, — "The mystery of the seven stars which 
thou sawest in my right hand,* and the seven golden candle- 
sticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, 
and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven 
churches." Now we insist, and we have a manifest right to 
insist, that if each star, or angel was one person, each candle- 
stick was one church. If all the congregations in any city, 
supposing that there were more than one, might be represented 
by a single candlestick, who can show a reason why all the 
pastors might not be represented by a single star, and why they 
might not be addressed collectively, under one symbolic term ? 
We need not be told, that by our own admission, the term 
" angel " was in common use, as applicable to a single person ; 
that does not, in the least, forbid the idea that it might be used 
symbolically, to represent any number of persons holding the 
office which the term, in its ordinary use, indicates. In the 
fourteenth chapter of Revelations, at the sixth verse, John 
says, — " And I saw another angel flying in the midst of 
heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that 
dwell on the earth," &c. Here the word " angel " is evidently 
used symbolically, and not to represent a few, but all Christ's 
ministers throughout the whole world. 

Thai the term "angel " La the messages to the seven churches 
is used symbolically, to represent a plurality of persons, is the 
opinion of some <>\' the ablest and most learned men that have 
ever written. Among Episcopalians themselves, there may be 
given the names of 'such men as Dr. Henry More, Joseph Mede, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 1C7 

Dr. Fulk, and bishop Stillingfleet. The latter author, in his 
Irenicum, is quoted by Dr. Mason, as saying, — If, i n the pro- 
phetic style, any unity may be set down byway of representa- 
tion of a multitude, what evidence can be brought from the 
name, that by it some one particular person must be under- 
stood ? " A little further on, he says, " If many things in the 
epistles be direct to the angels, but yet so as to concern the 
whole body, then of necessity, the angel must be taken as a 
representative of the whole body ; and then, why may not the 
word l angel ' be taken by way of representation of the body 
itself, either of the whole church, or, which is far more pro- 
bable, of the concessus, or order of presbyters in that church ? 
We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, 
which are brought for any kind of government from meta- 
phorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously 
used." 

Fourth. The terms in which the angels are addressed, instead 
of proving that they were prelatic bishops, are in perfect ac- 
cordance with the view of their office held by us. If the term 
rt angels," in the messages, is used symbolically for many pastors, 
then of course, according to the rules of symbolization, they are 
all addressed as one, and we are to look for nothing in the 
terms employed that shall violate the conditions of the symbolic 
unity ; so that whether we adopt the idea, that in each of the 
seven cities, there was but one church, with its president, who 
was addressed literally, or that in each city there were many 
churches with their several presidents, who were all addressed 
under the form of a symbolic one, the case, so far as the pre- 
sent inquiry is concerned, remains the same; and the simple 
question that presents itself is this, — Is there any thing in 
either of the messages to the angels that necessarily implies 
diocesan and prelatic authority, in the person addressed ? Or, 
to adopt another form of the inquiry,— Is there any thing in 
either of these messages that would be inappropriate, if addressed 
to the pastor of a single congregation ? 



168 THE CHURCH, 

Let those things be fixed upon for the test of this matter, 
which Mr. Schuyler has chosen, as clearly sustaining his side of 
the question. To the angel of the church at Pergamos, Christ 
savs? — « I have a few things against thee, because thou hast 
them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam," &c. On this, our 
author remarks, — " Here then we have an individual officer pub- 
licly censured, and that, too, by the great head of the church, 
for permitting heretical teaching, as though he alone were 
responsible for that sin. Now why is this, unless this officer 
had the supreme authority entrusted to him ? Had there been 
at this time presbyters, ruling in the churches, would not the 
address have been made to them, in their associate capacity ? " 

In the first place, it is to be remarked, that our author 
assumes that the persons in the church at Pergamos holding 
the doctrine of Balaam, are ministers, preaching that doctrine. 
The text says " holding " the doctrine of Balaam. Might I not 
be personally reproved, as president of my church, for allowing 
persons to remain in it, who should be found holding pernicious 
doctrines ? What is there in this message to the angel of the 
church at Pergamos that indicates any higher power or respon- 
sibility attaching to his office, than attaches to the office of 
every Presbyterian pastor ? "So hast thou also them that hold 
the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes." — The reader will observe, 
that in every instance, in which the angel is reproved for not 
excluding heretics, the language employed, is such as to suggest 
the idea, not of heretical ministers, but of heretical church- 
members. 

Our author's next example, of what he supposes indicates 
prelatic power in these angels, is taken from the message to the 
angel of the church at Ephesus. He says, a Christ specially 
commends him for having enforced his authority in exercising 
discipline upon those, who, it would seem, had claimed to be 
apostles, without any proper warrant; thus clearly proving that 
lu\ thai is the angel at Ephesus, was an apostle, and that there 
were still true apostles in the church, for had he not been an 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 169 

apostle, he would have had no authority to try their claims- 
and had there not been true apostles, there would have been no 
necessity for instituting proceedings to detect the false. These 

are the words of the address to the angel of Ephesus ' I 

know thy works and labor, and thy patience, and how thou 
canst not bear them which are evil, and thou hast tried them 
which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them 
liars.' Here, then, is an officer above all other ministers, occu- 
pying the position, and exerting the same authority over the 
churches in Ephesus, which the bishops of the Episcopal church 
do in their respective dioceses." 

As a specimen of our author's reasoning, this can not fail to 
afford amusement. 

Let us examine it part by part. " Christ especially com- 
mends him for having enforced his authority in the exercise of 
discipline." What had the angel done ? He had tried them 
which said they were apostles arjd were not. Our author's 
idea is, that he had " instituted proceedings " against them, i. e. 
he had arraigned them before a bishop's court, and read an 
indictment, and called witnesses, and proceeded regularly, ac- 
cording to law, to convict and sentence them. All this, out of 
that little word " tried." Now there are a great many ways of 
trying men who set up high pretensions, some of which with- 
out the formality of a bishop's court, one would suppose might 
have been used some years ago in this city, in the case of the 
famous tractarian and canon of Oxford University, who, after 
being feasted and lionized for several days by all the Episcopal 
clergy, was finally claimed in the street, by a forsaken wife, who 
desired him to return to Ohio, and look after his children. It 
is evident that quite too much is claimed for that word " tried." 
When men come to me claiming to be ministers, if I am doubt- 
ful of their character, I always try them. I ask for their 
credentials, and in various ways subject them to such tests as I 
deem requisite for affording me full satisfaction, and if I find 
them to be impostors, I send them away and warn the churches 



170 THE CHURCH, 

against them. But I am nothing more than a plain scriptural 
bishop, and no prelate at all. 

"For having enforced his authority in the exercise of disci- 
pline upon those, who, it would seem, had claimed to be apostles 
without any proper warrant; thus clearly proving that he 
that is, the angel at Ephesus, was an apostle? 1 

The word " apostle " is used in the New Testament, as the 
reader has seen, and as our author may be presumed to know, 
sometimes to express one of the twelve high functionaries 
appointed by Christ to preside over the founding and establish- 
ing of his church, and sometimes to express an ordinary chris- 
tian minister, sent abroad as a missionary. Our author has an 
intuitive knowledge of the sense in which it is used here. He 
knows by an instinct of his genius, — for he could not know in 
any other way, — that those persons whom the angel at Ephesus 
tried, claimed to be apostles in the highest and most dignified 
sense of the word. I submit to the reader, if it is not alto- 
gether more probable that they pretended to be missionaries , 
duly authorized to preach the gospel? Our author has 
obtained a foundation, however, broad enough to serve him for 
a conclusion. — " Thus clearly proving that he, that is, the angel 
at Ephesus was an apostle. 11 Suppose it were certain that 
those imposters claimed to be apostles in the highest sense, how 
would it then be " clearly proved " that the angel was such an 
apostle, by his detecting them in their falsehood ? The old 
saying, that " it takes a rogue to catch a rogue," may possibly 
have some degree of truth in it, but I can not see why it should 
take an apostle to know an apostle. " The signs of an apostle," 
which Paul tells us were "signs, and wonders, and mighty 
deeds," were certainly not so obscure that a plain pastor of a 
church could not discern them. How then would it follow that 
the angel at Ephesus was an apostle, or a prelatic bishop, from 
his delecting the falsehood of those that "said they were apos- 
tles and were not?" Could not a Presbyterian pastor say to 
one coming to him with such high claims, — " Sir, you say that 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 171 

you are an apostle ; now show the proof, and I will believe you. 
Do a manifest miracle, and you shall be received and hon- 
ored, according to your desire ? " And would not this be trying 
him ? This is the very way in which we do try those who in these 
times " say they are apostles and are not, and find them liars." 
" Thus clearly proving that he, that is, the angel at Ephesus, 
was an apostle, and that there were still true apostles in the 
church, for had he not been an apostle he would have had no 
authority to try their claims" Our author's head is full of his 
idea of a bishop's court. I grant that none but a bona-fide 
bishop, according to the Episcopal sense of the word, would 
have had authority to hold a bishop's court, but to insist that 
the false apostles were tried in a bishop's court, such as our 
author is thinking of, is asking a little too much. They were 
put to the test of their apostleship. This is the reasonable con- 
struction of the language used, and if any thing else is contended 
for, it must be proved. They may have been put to the test 
of their apostleship before a presbyter bishop's court, that is, 
before the pastor and his session, or board of elders; this is 
possible ; and such a court any pastor would have authority to 
hold, to try a pretended apostle. Let me ask Mr. Schuyler if 
he does not regard himself as having the authority which he 
thinks was exercised by the angel at Ephesus ? If a person 
should come to him, claiming to be the bishop of some distant 
and obscure diocese of the church of England, a person of 
whom he had no knowledge, and had never before heard, would 
he not feel it to be his duly as well as right, to try him, to put 
him to the test in some way, before receiving him in the char- 
acter which he professed ? Would he not feel authorized to 
demand the gentleman's testimonials, and if he found them to 
be forgeries, to reject and denounce him ? I do not know how 
my brother would be affected by the bare presumption of 
having an apostle to deal with, but I think he would claim the 
right which I have supposed, and exercise it. What a sudden 
leap he would make among the stars/ According to his own 



172 THE CHURCH, 

reasoning, it would " clearly prove " that he, that is, Mr. Schuy- 
ler, " is an apostle — for had he not been an apostle, he would 
have had no authority to try " this pretender's " claims." 

Not only was the angel at Ephesus clearly proved to be an 
apostle, by his trying those that " said they were apostles, and 
were not," but it was clearly proved also, as a larger proposi- 
tion, " that there were still true apostles in the church; for had 
there not been true apostles, there would have been no necessity 
for instituting proceedings to detect the falser 

This would be very good logic, if our author had only 
proved that these imposters claimed to be apostles in the high 
and distinctive sense of the word. But if what they claimed 
was, merely to be missionaries, and this is by far the most 
natural supposition, then it is only proved that missionaries 
were still employed in the church, which we fully believe. I 
say the most natural supposition is, that they claimed to be mis- 
sionaries ; for missionaries, we know, were going to every part 
of the world, but apostles, according to the Episcopal theory, 
had at this time become almost universally fixed stars, like the 
angel or star at Ephesus. If there were any true apostles still 
acting as missionaries, they must have been few in number and 
well known ; and as for the rest, it was in itself a suspicious 
circumstance, that they should be wandering about away from 
their dioceses. It would evidently be a poor business for 
impostors to set up as apostles ; but to set up as missionaries, 
as evangelists, as traveling preachers of the gospel, would be 
less unpromising. All the probabilities of the case are adverse 
to our author's assumption. 

But let us take his conclusion, — " Here, then, is an officer 
above all other ministers, occupying the position, and exerting 
the same authority over the churches in Ephesus, which the 
bishops of the Episcopal church do in their respective dioceses. 
Who can doubt it?" (fee, (fee! 

The reader is free to his own opinion as to what this brave 
conclusion rests upon. What one thing has our author pointed 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 173 

out to us, appertaining to the « angels of the churches," which 
Episcopal bishops only can do ? What one thing, which the 
pastor of the smallest congregation in the world may not do, 
just as well as the archbishop of Canterbury, or all the prelates 
in Christendom put together. 

We might, if it were necessary, meet our author's argument, 
and, though poorly constructed and feebly stated, it is the argu- 
ment substantially of all his school of writers, on entirely 
different ground from any which has yet been assumed. 
Though these messages of Christ were formally sent to the 
angels of the churches, and are, for the most part, addressed 
by the designative terms, thee and thou, yet nothing is more 
evident than that they were really sent to the churches, as 
such, and to the angels only as presidents of the churches 
and representing them ; so, that whatever powers and prero- 
gatives seem to be attributed to the angels, are really not 
the angels' alone, but belong to the churches, with their minis- 
ters at their head. Let the messages themselves be considered, 
and the least discriminating reader can not fail to perceive that 
it is a perfect absurdity to regard them as being addressed to 
the angels as such, and to them solely. In the message to the 
angel at Ephesus, Christ says, — " Nevertheless, I have some- 
what against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remem- 
ber, therefore, from whence thou art fallen ; and repent, and do 
thy first works ; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will 
remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." — 
Was this said to the angel alone, or to the church also ? Was 
the church to be visited with divine judgment, even to removal 
or extermination, for the sin of the angel, and not for its own 
sins ? Look everywhere in these messages, and it seems to me 
the man is beside himself, who can not see that it is the 
churches as entire wholes, — presidents, associate elders, and 
people, — that are addressed. And, to put the matter to rest 
effectually, let the brief but solemn caution with which each 



174 THE CHURCH, 



message closes, be considered — " He that hath an ear, let him 
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." 

The exercise of authority, therofore, in the enforcement of 
discipline, and the trying of false apostles, <fec, which, Mr. 
Schuyler thinks, prove so clearly that the angels were apostles 
or prelatic bishops, were things done, according to the record, 
not by the angels, as such, at all, but by the churches in 
connection with their angels or ministers. 

In every view which can be taken of this subject, the argu- 
ment for diocesan episcopacy fails — as it has failed in every 
other instance — and the whole weight of evidence is found to 
be on the side of parity. 

I have now passed over the entire ground upon which a 
scriptural defense of prelacy is attempted ; I will not presume 
that what I have written will convert Episcopalians, for I doubt 
if many will read it ; but I am satisfied, without taking much 
credit to myself, that no honest and impartial reader will rise 
from the perusal of these pages and not be convinced that the 
whole episcopal theory is a baseless fabric of the most indefen- 
sible assumptions. There is really nothing in the bible which, 
when it is sifted, seems to favor that system, but every thing is 
in direct hostility against it. When I say this, I am sure I dc 
not speak under the heat of a controversial excitement, but 
express the deliberate conviction in which my mind has rested 
ever since I first examined this subject, sixteen years ago, foi 
the determination of my own course, when I proposed entering 
the christian ministry. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 175 

IS THERE AUTHORITY FOR PRESBYTERIAL 
ORDINATION ? 

Our author says on page sixty-eight,—" We have endeavored 
to show, and we think, established conclusively the fact, that 
there are three orders of ministers recognized in the holy scrip- 
tures ; that this was the case while Christ was upon earth, Christ 
himself having been consecrated to the ministry, and occupying; 
the highest, the apostles in the second grade, and the seventy 
disciples in the lowest. We noticed, also, that after Christ's 
ascension, the apostles continued the like number of orders; 
viz., apostles, elders or presbyters, and deacons. We showed 
that Timothy and Titus succeeded to the apostolical office, and 
that to them was committed the charge of the presbyters and 
deacons in Ephesus and Crete : that, as the successors of the 
apostles, they were constituted supreme rulers in these churches, 
with exclusive authority in their respective dioceses over both 
presbyters and deacons, to exercise discipline, correct abuses, and 
ordain." 

I am sure, that the reader, who has carefully followed me 
through the topics thus recapitulated, must smile at our author's 
complacent remembrance of his labors. He proceeds : 

" Thus we clearly traced the three orders in the ministry, and 
proved from apostolic practice and sanction, that the right to 
govern the church and ordain to the ministry was vested in the 
highest grade alone. It is true, we did not cite any passage of 
scripture expressly limiting such power to them. This was 
unnecessary. Yv T e showed, clearly, that such power was posi- 
tively given to the apostles; it was not given to the presbyters 
or deacons, and not being given, the conclusion is irresistible, 
that they did not possess it; and therefore an express limitation 
or a positive declaration of holy scripture, that no others but 
the apostles were authorized to exercise these powers, was 



176 THE CHURCH, 

entirely unnecessary. Could we be furnished with a single 
instance in the New Testament, of presbyters or deacons exer- 
cising the right to ordain, though no apostolic injunction could 
be shown, as in the case of Timothy and Titus, we would yet 
consider it as endorsed with apostolic sanction, and yield the 
point in dispute at once; but we find no evidence of such 
example or sanction for presbyterian ordination, and therefore 
we are compelled to reject it." 

Our author says, — " We have shown clearly that such power 
(i. e. power to ordain) was positively given to the apostles' 1 

He has shown that this power was given to the persons who 
held the apostolic office, but has he shown that it was given to 
them as apostles? Does not the reader perceive that he 
entirely assumes the very question in debate, without even an 
attempt to prove it ? 

The apostles were presbyters, as well as apostles. — See 1 
Peter v: 1, 2 John i, 3 John i. Now it is indispensable to 
our author's argument, to show that it was as apostles, 
and not as presbyters, that they received and exercised the 
ordaining power. We think we have made it clear to every 
candid reader, that what was peculiar and distinguishing 
to the apostles, as such, was the power of witnessing from 
personal hwivledge of Christ, and that nothing else of a 
functional nature was peculiar to them, or distinguished them. 
If this is so, then the power to ordain was vested in them, not 
as apostles, but as presbyters. 

The power to ordain must have been left by Christ, when he 
ascended, in some hands; and the men whom he had chosen 
to be his apostles were the only persons whom he had endowed 
with any ministerial authority whatever. They, of course, 
were the persons to provide a ministry for the church. Whether 
the power to ordain appertained to their apostolical, or presby- 
terial office, is a question not to be disposed of so easily as Mr. 
Schuyler seems to imagine. We have attempted to settle it, 
by showing that this power of ordination was not comprehended 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 177 

in what was peculiar to the apostleship. Let it be made to 
appear, if it can be, that our argument on that head is unsound. 
It may be objected to the texts which we have cited to 
prove that the apostles were also presbyters, that John does not 
apply that term to himself as a term of office, but as indicative 
of his advanced age. Commentators are divided on this point; 
but I confess, I am unable to see why they should be. " The 
elder unto the elect lady." — " The elder unto the well-beloved 
Gaius." — This seems a most singular manner of speaking, if 
John merely intended to describe himself as a person of great 
age. Besides, if that were his purpose, why did he use fiie 
term " o presbuteros" the term invariably used as the name of 
the elder's office, and not, as Paul, when he would represent 
himself as an old man, (see Philem. 9,) the term " presbutes" 

— the proper, and the only proper term to express his mean- 
ing, if any derivative of presbus, was to be employed ? Why 
should he call himself the elder man, and not the old man? 

But this objection does not lie against the text from 1 Peter. 

— " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also 
" an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ." There can 

be no question of Peter's applying the term " elder" to himself 
as a title of office. He positively affirms, that he is an elder 
like the elders whom he exhorts, that he is one of them, hold- 
ing the same office which they hold, and so far on a level with 
them. The reader will perceive how, while he acknowledges 
himself to be an elder, and thus the equal only of the eldei"s 
whom he exhorts, he claims, at the same time, superiority, and 
a right to be attended to, on the ground of being something 
more than an elder, — even " a witness of the sufferings of 
Christ"— that is, an apostle. What a proof is here that we 
were right in our argument respecting the apostleship, — that 
its essential peculiarity was the power of witnessing for Christ! 
The original Greek is stronger for Peter's eldership than 
our translation. Peter calls himself "o sumpresbuteros" felh ■•- 
elder, expressing more strongly the absolute sameness of the 
9* 



178 THE CHURCH, 

presbyterial office held by him, with that which was held by 
those whom he was addressing. 

I see no way by which the force of this text may be evaded, 
but by admitting that Peter was a presbyter, and denying that 
any other apostle was so ; that is, by claiming that Peter was a 
singular exception, and that, for some unexplained reason, the 
presbyterial office had been conferred on him alone. This may 
be affirmed, but it will hardly be believed, even by the affirm- 
ants. On the contrary, we refer to the text, and show that Peter 
does not claim to be an elder at all, as though it constituted for 
him a distinction among the apostles; and besides, we appeal 
to the commission given by our Lord to all the apostles, to do 
the very work which presbyters were appointed to perform, — 
to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. 

Mr. S. admits that the apostles were elders. On page 
seventy-two of his book, he says, the presbytery which ordained 
Timothy " may have been composed only of apostles, for we 
know that both Peter and John style themselves elders or 
presbyters." 

With this important fact proved and admitted, see how the 
whole argument of our author falls to the ground. " We 
showed clearly that such power (i. e. power to ordain) was 
positively given to the apostles" That is to say, he has shown 
that such power was positively given to presbyters — for the 
apostles were presbyters ; and we have shown that as apostles, 
their sole duty was to be witnesses of Christ. 

" It was not given" says our author, " to the presbyters or 
deacons, and not being given to them the conclusion is irresisti- 
ble, that they did not possess it; and therefore an express 
limitation or a positive declaration of holy scripture, that no 
others but apostles were authorized to exercise this power, was 
entirely unnecessary :" "We very cheerfully concede the fact, 
that it was not given to the deacons, and for the very best of 
reasons; but it was given to presbyters, and, if we may steal 
the thunder of our author's most astonishing logic, being given 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 179 

to them, the conclusion is irresistible, that they did possess it, 
" and therefore an express limitation, or a positive declaration 
of holy scripture, that no others but " elders " were authorized 
to exercise this power was entirely unnecessary." 

The presbyterial office was the only permanent ministerial 
office held by the apostles, and consequently the only one 
which they had the power to impart. They could not impart 
the apostleship ; for, as we have shown, and as Dr. Barrow main- 
tains, with such resistless force of argument, "the apostolical 
office, as such, was personal and temporary; and therefore, 
according to its nature and design, not successive, or communi- 
cable to others." Now, in imparting the presbyterial office, in 
what character did they act ? When, in token of communica- 
tion, they laid their hands upon a man and ordained him to 
the presbyterate, did they act as apostles, or as presbyters? as 
presbyters, certainly, seeing that it was the presbyterial office 
which they were communicating. 

The act of imposition of hands, when it was any thing more 
than a gesture of designation, as in the bestowment of a bless- 
ing, was the outward and visible sign of impartation. Thus 
the apostles laid hands on those to whom they imparted the 
Holy Ghost, or any spiritual gift; not as though the Holy 
Ghost, or the spiritual gift were actually communicated by 
contact, but, as a significant sign of what they did ; — a prac- 
tice, by the way, most absurdly retained by Episcopal bishops 
in the rite of confirmation. I say absurdly retained, for have 
they any idea that they bestow the Holy Ghost, or that they 
impart any spiritual gift whatever ? Do they suppose, while 
they can not lay claim to any other one of the miraculous 
powers of the apostles, that they have this power,— which was 
as truly miraculous as any other by which the apostles attested 
their divine mission ? Who has ever seen the evidence in those 
confirmed by them, that by that act they had received the 
Holy Ghost, or any other miraculous gifts of grace? The 
apostles also laid hands on those to whom they imparted office ; 



180 THE CHURCH, 

whom they ordained, not as though the official character were 
actually communicated by touch, but for a sign. They gave 
the office, and signified it by laying their hands on the head 
of the person who received the gift. In either case, whether 
they were communicating grace or office, the imposition of 
their hands was the sign of impartation. Now what I desire 
to have especially considered is, that in making this sign, they 
themselves acted in the character of holders of that which they 
communicated. If they imparted spiritual gifts, they did it as 
possessors of spiritual gifts. If they imparted office, they did 
it as possessors of the office which they imparted. This was 
the very thing in which lay the significancy of the manual 
imposition. It was as if the office or the gifts passed from one 
to the other through the connecting medium thus established. 
We say, therefore, that in ordaining presbyters, the apostles 
acted as presbyters. Let it be shown that they ever ordained 
other apostles, and we will own that in doing this they acted 
as apostles. But we call in vain for such a showing. If we 
are reminded of the ordination of the seven deacons as an 
apparent objection to the statement that has just been made, 
we would say, that the imposition of the apostles' hands in that 
case, may have been nothing more than a sign of the 
communication of spiritual gifts; or, it may be considered, 
that, as the deacon's office had, until that time, been exercised 
by the apostles themselves, they, in ordaining the deacons, 
acted as deacons, giving up, or transferring that particular 
charge to them. 

Says our author, — u Could we be furnished with a single 
instance in the Neiv Testament, of presbyters or deacons exer- 
cising the right to ordain, though no apostolic injunction could 
be shown, as in the case of Timothy and Titus, we would yet 
consider it as endorsed with apostolic sanction, and yield the 
point in dispute at once; but we can find no evidence of such 
example or sanction for presbyterian ordination, and there- 
fore we are compelled to reject itP 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. i 81 

We refer him then to every particular instance of ordination 
of which a record is made in the New Testament, as just such 
an instance as he is inquiring after. There is no instance 
recorded of the apostles ordaining an apostle. They ordained* 
elders, and this they did as elders, furnishing at once both the 
example and the sanction on which rests the right of presbyte- 
rian ordination; not only did they themselves ordain elders, 
but they appointed other elders to do the same, " as in the case 
of Timothy and Titus." This satisfies us, and it ought to satisfy 
our author. 

For positive proof that the power of ordination was exercised 
by presbyters, we refer to 1 Timothy iv: 14, " Neglect not the 
gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Our author lays 
himself out with unusual spirit to do away with the killing 
force of this passage. His struggles however, only make the 
matter worse for him. The passage remains, a clear and unde- 
niable record of just such an ordination, as he says he requires 
but one instance of, to be persuaded to "yield the point in 
dispute at once." 

He begins with a frank admission that the text " refers to an 
ordination" though he says, " this has been ably disputed by 
some of our most learned men ; and among them, by the able 
author of the tract, episcopacy tested by scripture? The reason 
why some Episcopalians have denied that the passage before us 
refers to an ordination, is very obvious. Some, and among 
them, the truly able author of the tract, " Episcopacy tested by 
Scripture," have had the sagacity to perceive, that on this 
denial rests the only hope of successfully resisting the Presbyte- 
rian argument. If the passage presents a case of ordination, 
the debate is essentially ended, for that it was a presbyterial 
ordination is manifest. 

We do not require the reader to assume this important point, 
but we ask him to look at the connection in which the text 



182 THE CHURCH, 

stands, and see if the " gift " spoken of, can possibly mean any 
thing else than the ministerial office which Timothy had. 

Says Paul, in the sixth verse, — "If thou put the brethren in 
* remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of 
Jesus Christ, nourished up in the word of faith and of good 
doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane, 
and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself unto godliness." In 
the eleventh verse he proceeds, — " These things command and 
teach; — Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an 
example of believers," &c. " Till I come, give attendance to 
reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is 
in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on 
of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things : 
give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to 
all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine ; continue 
in them; for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself and 
them that hear thee." Now, what is the subject of the apostle's 
discourse to Timothy in this place ? His ministry, evidently. 
This, then, beyond the possibility of reasonable contradiction, 
was the gift which he is exhorted not to neglect. The author 
of the tract, " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," has no way of 
evading this conclusion, but by supposing that the gift which 
was in Timothy, "by the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery," was his designation, subsequently to his minis- 
terial ordination, to the particular field of labor he then occu- 
pied ; as Barnabas and Saul were designated at Antioch — see 
Acts xiii : 3 — to a particular work. The fallacy of such a 
supposition, however, may be easily exposed. Could the gift 
of the ministry that was in Barnabas and Saul, when they 
went forth on that special mission, be spoken of as being 
derived from the solemn form of separation by which they had 
been set apart to that special work ? Did they by that act of 
consecration to a special work, receive the ministerial office? 
Yet in the present case, the case of Timothy, it was the very 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 183 

gift of the ministry itself that lie is represented as having 
received by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 

It is to be observed, that Dr. Onderdonk, in the tract, '• Epis- 
copacy tested by Scripture," does not deny that the text before 
us relates to Timothy's ordination. He merely ventures an 
opinion, that it is susceptible of a different construction. He 
says — " Was the laying on of hands, on Timothy, here men- 
tioned, an ordination I It can not, at least, be proved. And 
comparing scripture with scripture, are we not justified in 
regarding it as a transaction similar to the one in the case 
of Barnabas and Saul ? " 

Beyond all doubt, our author is correct in his admission, that 
the text we are now considering, describes an ordination to the 
ministry. 

The next inquiry relates to the meaning of the word " pres- 
bytery T " Does it refer," our author asks, " to the body of 
ordainers, or does it refer to the office to which Timothy was 
ordained ? " He proceeds to say — u Many learned men have 
inclined to the opinion, that it refers to the office," and then 
cites the names of Calvin and Grotius; the former of whom, in 
fact, expresses just the contrary opinion, while the latter only 
refrains from insisting on the usual interpretation, out of defer- 
ence to the opinions of Ambrose and Jerome, and from a mis- 
take which he also seems to have fallen into in regard to the 
opinion of Calvin. Calvin says, that he thinks the text might 
bear such an interpretation as that put upon it by Ambrose and 
Jerome, yet, " they who think that presbytery here is a collec- 
tive name put for the assembly of presbyters, in my opinion 
judge rightly T 

" Admitting this interpretation," says our author, " we would 
have the account, simply, of the ordination of Timothy as a 
presbyter, without any intimation from the passage itself, of the 
character and office of the person, or persons by whom the act 
was performed." This, he says, is " one mode of interpreting 
the passage — which divests it of the least color of proof in 



184 THE CHURCH, 

favor of Timothy's ordination by presbyters." Has he not 
rushed from Scylla into Charybdis? 



'Me miserable !- which way I fly is,"' 



He had probably forgotten that the office to which Timothy 
was ordained by the presbytery, was at any rate the office 
which he exercised at Ephesus ! If he very much desires it, 
perhaps we might be induced to consent to this interpretation, 
and instead of using the text as a proof for presbyterial ordina- 
tion, take it as proving that Timothy was only a presbyter, and 
not apostolic bishop in the Ephesian church. 

We do not deny that Timothy was ordained a presbyter. 
On the contrary, we affirm it, and we affirm that this text 
teaches it, inasmuch as it teaches that he was ordained by pres- 
byters, as such, acting together in the capacity of a presbytery. 
But we think it very absurd to say that the primary and spe- 
cific meaning of the text is, that Timothy was ordained to the 
presbyter ate, and not by the presbytery, 

Goode, in his " Divine Rule," vol. ii, page sixty-four, refer- 
ring to a passage in the commentaries on St. Paul's epistles, 
commonly attributed to Hilary, though by some to Ambrose, 
says — " Timothy is here said, we may observe, to have been 
ordained a presbyter, and I can not but think that the passage, 
1 Tim. iv: 14, is favorable to this view, for without adopting 
the translation which some have given of this passage, viz., 
4 with the laying on of hands for the office of a presbyter] if 
we retain our own version, which appears to me more natural, 
— who, or what is the presbytery? Certainly not consisting 
altogether of the apostles, though, it appears, — 2 Tim. i : 6, — that 
ordination was received by Timothy partly from St. Paul. But 
if presbyters joined in that ordination, it could not be to a higher 
sacerdotal grade, or order, than that of the presbyterhood. Nor 
is this inconsistent with his being called elsewhere an apostle, 
which name might be given him as one appointed to be 
superintendent of a church." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 185 

Goode thinks that the text teaches, that Timothy was ordained 
a presbyter, because he was ordained by the presbytery, which 
he is sure must have been composed, in part, at least, of presby- 
ters. He is undoubtedly right, in every thing except in sup- 
posing that the presbytery was not composed altogether of 
elders, whatever offices besides may have been held by those 
who acted as members of it. 

The word " presbytery," presbuterion, is never used in the 
New Testament for the name of an office. It occurs only in 
two other places — Luke xxii : 66, where it is rendered " elders," 
and Acts xxii : 5, where it is rendered " estate of the elders." 
In each of these places it refers to the council or assembly of 
the elders of the Jews. In the passage now under considera- 
tion, it can not refer to that body 7 for no one will suppose that 
they ordained men to the office of the christian ministry. As, 
however, in both of those instances it signifies a body of per- 
sons known as elders, so here it signifies some council, or 
assembly, or body of persons, known by the name of elders in 
the christian church. It is enough to say a plurality, or a col- 
lection of elders. This, at least, it does mean to a perfect cer- 
tainty, and the attempt to make any thing else of it is the 
merest folly. 

Third. How was this presbytery, which ordained Timothy, 
constituted? Says our author, after having sacrificed the 
Ephesian episcopate, in his effort to evade the force of the text 
in its bearings on the question now pressing him, — " But let 
us take another view of the passage. Let us admit that the 
passage in question does refer to the assembly of ordainers — 
the question then arises, who composed this presbytery ? It 
may have been composed only of apostles; for we know that 
both Peter and John style themselves elders or presbyters, and 
we will presently show beyond a doubt, that St. Paul was a 
member of the ordaining body, and the principal actor." 

Let the reader observe that Mr. Schuyler acknowledges here, 
that the apostles were presbyters, and that he does this for the 



186 THE CHURCH, 

very purpose of showing that the presbytery which ordained 
Timothy may have been made up wholly of them. That is, 
he admits that none but presbyters could have been members 
of the presbytery. Of course he admits this, when he finds it 
necessary to state the fact that the apostles were presbyters, in 
order to sustain his supposition that the presbytery " may have 
been composed only of apostles." Now, it is a matter of the 
utmost indifference to us, whether all who composed that pres- 
bytery were apostles, or whether not one w T as an apostle. Let 
it go at that, that every man of them was an apostle. What 
then ? Were they members of the presbytery as apostles, or 
as presbyters? Was the presbytery, strictly speaking, a body 
of apostles, or was it a body of presbyters ? — We care not 
what other offices the persons composing this presbytery may 
have held. It was as presbyters that they constituted a pres- 
bytery, and what they did as a presbytery they did in their 
presbyterial capacity, and in no other. Timothy, therefore, was 
ordained by presbyters. 

If Timothy had been ordained by the apostles, as such, why 
does not Paul say, " The gift that is in thee, which was given 
thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the apos- 
tles ? " Why does he say, " With the laying on of the hands 
of the presbytery" unless those who participated in this trans- 
action did so in the character of presbyters ? Mr. Barnes, in 
his notes on this passage, has the following pertinent remarks : 
" The statement here is just such a one as would now be made 
respecting a Presbyterian ordination. It is not one which 
would be made of an Episcopal ordin ation. A Presbyterian 
would choose these very words, in giving an account of an 
ordination to the work of the ministry ; an Episcopalian would 
not. The former speaks of an ordination by a presbytery ; 
the latter of an ordination by a bishop. The former can use 
the account of the apostle Paul here as applicable to an ordi- 
nation, without explanations, comments, new versions, or criti- 
cisms ; the latter can not. The passage, therefore, is full of 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 187 

proof that, in one of the most important ordinations mentioned 
in the New Testament,, it was performed by an association of 
men, and not by a prelate, and therefore, that this was the 
primitive mode of ordination." The passage, I may add, is 
full of proof that it was performed by an association of men 
acting as presbyters, whatever other offices they may have held, 
and not acting in any other capacity ; and therefore, that the 
primitive mode of ordination was strictly presbyterial, and 
not episcopal. 

Our author says, " Great diversity of opinion prevails among 
the advocates of parity, as to the persons who composed this 
presbytery." I would like to know if any less diversity of 
opinion prevails among the advocates of imparity. No one 
knows who the persons were, except that Paul was one of 
them. If we are ignorant as to who the persons were, we are 
not ignorant as to what they were. We know that they were 
all presbyters, from the fact that they were constituent members 
of a presbytery. He proposes an appeal to the fathers, and 
quotes Ignatius as using the following language : " Fleeing to 
the apostles as the presbytery of the church." Ignatius here 
represents the apostles as exercising the chief authority in the 
church, which, while they lived, they unquestionably did. But 
in what character did they exercise this chief authority ? As a 
college of apostles ? No ; as a presbyter?/. It was as presbyters 
that they ruled, and were thus a refuge for the distressed and the 
perplexed, and not as apostles. We thank our author for 
helping us to this authority. It is important, as going to 
show, that not in f ordination merely, but in government also, 
the apostles always acted as a presbytery. As apostles they 
were witnesses of Christ, but it was as presbyters that they 
ordained ministers and governed the churches. Our author 
infers from the words of Ignatius, that in his day the word 
presbytery " might refer to a body of apostles alone." AA o 
quite agree with him. It is a fair inference. The apostles, 
therefore, were presbyters as well as apostles. He quotes St. 



188 THE CHURCH, 

Chrysostom, as saying on this passage — " By eldership, (pres- 
bytery,) he means, not presbyters but bishops, for presbyters 
did not ordain bishops." But he has himself acknowledged 
that one way of disposing of the text, is to regard it as teach- 
ing that Timothy was ordained to the presbyterate. Will he 
now stultify himself by proving that he was ordained a bishop ? 
If we had been told where this saying of Chrysostom is found, 
we might then look for it, and see whether this father ever used 
such words. All I have to say is, that if he did use such 
words, he was mistaken ; for it is absurd to say, that by " elder- 
ship " Paul did not mean elders. We might as well be told, 
that by the membership of a church is not meant its members. 
With all due respect for his saintship, Chrysostom should not 
have written nonsense, if he expected his words to have 
authority in the nineteenth century. Theodoret says, — we are 
not informed where, — " that the ministers who, with St. Paul, 
consecrated Timothy, were those who were vouchsafed the 
favor to be apostles." We have said already, that we are quite 
willing to have it so. If Theodoret had said, that it was as 
apostles and not as presbyters, that they consecrated Timothy, 
the testimony would have been worth contradicting ; but as it 
stands, we are quite willing that it should stand. 

u We think then," says our author, " we may safely conclude 
that the probabilities are, that apostles composed this presby- 
tery ; and at any rate, that there is so much doubt about the 
meaning of the term, that Presbyterians build upon a very frail 
foundation, when they alledge this passage as the basis on 
which they lay their claim for the right of ordination by mere 
presbyters." 

Instead of laboring to show that apostles composed this 
presbytery, the true point for him to elucidate was, that they 
composed it as apostles, and not as presbyters. He owns that 
they were presbyters ; why will he not allow them ever to act 
as presbyters ? Why, when they are especially said by inspira- 
tion itself, to have done a thing as a presbytery, that is, as an 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 189 

assembly of presbyters, will be and all otber Episcopalians 
insist upon it, that they did it as apostles ? We say again, we 
care not by whom Timothy was ordained, so long as he was 
ordained by the 'presbytery. A frail foundation, is it, on which 
to lay our claim for the right of ordination by mere presbyters ? 
Pray tell us what kind of a foundation it is then, on which to 
lay a claim for the right of ordination by those who are not 
presbyters ? — or by a mere diocesan bishop ? Let the instance 
be shown in the New Testament, where the act of ordination 
was ever performed by a single individual, or by any number 
of individuals, who were not elders? The instance can not be 
produced. Did Timothy ordain alone at Ephesus ? Prove it. 
Or Titus in Crete ? Prove it. Were they any thing more than 
elders in the character of their permanent ministry ? Prove it. 
These assumptions, we think, have been sufficiently disposed of 
on a former occasion. 

Our author's argument to show that Paul took part in 
Timothy's ordination might have been spared. We cheerfully 
admit it. But we utterly deny that Paul was, in any peculiar 
sense, the ordainer. In the second epistle to Timothy, he 
says — " That thou stir up the gift of God that is in thee, by 
the laying on of my hands." Mr. S. prints the word " my " in 
capitals, and then adds, — "Here, then, St. Paul expressly 
reminds Timothy of the fact that he had been ordained by 
him, without the least intimation that his commission had been 
conferred by any other." Does he, then, give up the idea that 
the presbytery may have been composed only of apostles ? 

We affirm that Paul, as a presbyter, acted with the other 
presbyters who composed the presbytery. Except as a presby- 
ter, he could not have been a constituent member of that body J 
for a presbytery, in the nature of the case, is not made up of 
presbyters and others, — but of presbyters alone. It is a body 
of presbyters merely. And the text in 2 Timothy is in per- 
fect consistency with this view of the subject. Says Mr. 
Barnes, in commenting on this place, — "The language here 



190 THE CHURCH, 

used, 'by the putting on of my hands,' is just such as Paul, or 
any other one of the presbyters, would use in referring to the 
ordination of Timothy, though they were all regarded as on a 
level. It is such an expression as an aged Presbyterian, or 
Congregational, or Baptist minister would address to a son 
whom he had assisted to ordain. Nothing would be more 
natural than to remind him that his own hands had been laid 
on him when he was set apart to the work of the ministry.- It 
would be in the nature of a tender, pathetic, and solemn 
appeal, bringing all that there was in his own character, age, 
and relation to the other, to bear on him, in order to induce 
him to be faithful to his trust. On other occasions he would 
naturally remind him that others had united with him in the 
act, and that he had derived his authority through the presby- 
tery, just as Paul appeals to Timothy — 1 Tim. iv: 14. But 
no one would now think of inferring from this, that he meant 
to be understood as saying, that he alone had ordained him, or, 
that all the authority for preaching the gospel had been 
imparted through his hands, and that those who were asso- 
ciated with him only expressed concurrence ; that is, that their 
presence there was only an unmeaning ceremony. 

It is sometimes pretended, that there is a certain peculiarity 
in the different forms of expression in 1 Tim. iv: 14, where 
the presbytery is spoken of, and in 2 Tim. i : 6, where Paul 
speaks of himself alone as acting in this ordination. In the 
former case, it is " meta" with the laying on, &c. In the latter, 
it is " dia" by the putting on, &c. This is a very poor refuge ; 
for, without going into a very critical examination of these 
Greek prepositions, " meta " and " din? I am persuaded that 
no scholar will insist upon a distinction between them, that can 
be made to avail any thing in help of the Episcopal argument. 
They are undoubtedly prepositions, which, in cases like the 
present might be used interchangeably, as conveying precisely 
the same idea. But a Greek scholar, in looking at 1 Tim. iv : 
14, will readily see why the apostle chose " meta" there, rather 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 191 

than " dia? The latter preposition had been used the instant 
before with propheteias, (dia propheteias, by prophecy^) and 
it was partly to avoid repetition that meta was used, though 
not for this purpose alone. Timothy received the gift by pro- 
phecy. There had been, asw^e see from 1 Tim. i: 18, certain 
predictions going before respecting him, of which, particularly, 
we are not informed. But he was regarded as a person 
specially designated, by the prophetic spirit, to the work of the 
ministry. He was looked upon, I suppose on account of his 
peculiar early promise, as one raised up and especially qualified 
of God to be a minister of the gospel, and prophets in the 
early church had foretold his future usefulness. Now, the prep- 
osition u meta " was chosen as better than " dia " for repre- 
senting the concurrence of the presbytery in his ordination 
with the prophecies that had gone before respecting him. 
" The gift that is in thee by prophecy with the laying on," &c. 
The " dia, " that precedes propheteias, truly governs all that 
follows, and meta, strictly speaking, is not a governing, but 
connecting particle, so that, in point of fact, the texts in 
1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are not different, — " dia " being 
the governing preposition in both cases. 

The text in 1 Timothy declares, that he was ordained by the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery. In 2 Timothy, Paul 
says, " By the putting of my hands." — ]S T ow, how is the appa- 
rent contradiction to be reconciled? Can it be done by 
considering the literal fact as expressed in the second epistle ? 
'No ; for that would make the assertion in the first epistle false. 
If the ordination was really effected by the laying on of Paul's 
hands, then the presbytery, as such, had nothing to do with it. 
May the apparent contradiction be reconciled by supposing that 
the literal fact is expressed in the first epistle? Yes; for we 
have seen already, that in that case there would be no impro- 
priety whatever in Paul's saying, "By the putting on of my 
hands." It would be a natural way of speaking, and just such 
as any other member of the presbytery might, with entire 



192 THE CHURCH, 

propriety, have used. Timothy was ordained by the putting on 
of Paul's hands, though not by the putting on of Paul's 
hands alone. 

We desire our author carefully to read what we have now 
written, and then to say frankly whether he still thinks he has 
so " satisfactorily disposed of this strong passage? It seems 
to us, that so far from having disposed of it, as he imagines he 
has done, his attempt to do so, has pretty effectually disposed 
of him and of his cause. 

We propose now, to inquire how the testimony of the early 
fathers bears upon this question respecting the right to ordain. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS ON THIS SUBJECT. 

Presuming that it will not be denied that bishops were 
invested with the power of ordination, it is directly in point to 
show, that during the two first centuries there was no distinction, 
as to their grade of office, between bishops and presbyters. If 
this can be made satisfactorily to appear, the conclusion will be 
inevitable that, during the first two centuries, presbyters ordained. 

The reader is already aware, that by the admission of Epis- 
copalians themselves, bishops and presbyters are the same in 
the New Testament. Thus, Paul having assembled the pres- 
byters of Ephesus at Miletus, — Acts xx: 28, — addressed 
them all as bishops, and exhorted them to perform with 
fidelity the duties of the episcopal office, It is affirmed, how- 
ever, that immediately after the New Testament times the 
mode of expression was changed, and that wherever the word 
bishop occurs in the writings of the early fathers, it has a 
meaning essentially different from that which it has in the 
writings of the apostles, — -standing for a minister, like the 
modern diocesan prelate, distinct from presbyters in the grade 
of his office, and superior to them. Apart from the evidence 
of the writings themselves, the only ancient authority adduced 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 193 

for such a change is Theodoret, who nourished in the latter part 
of the fourth century, the inadequacy of whose testimony must 
be apparent to every one, because he does not specify the period 
at which the change took place, but only says, that it was 
introduced after the days of the apostles, " in process of time." 
Theodoret testifies to nothing which we do not know from other 
sources. No one can read the fathers in succession down to his 
time, and not discover for himself, how, with " the process of 
time," after the year 200, the system of prelacy gradually 
developed itself, and the term bishop acquired, by usage, its new 
and unscriptural meaning. Now, I desire to show, by numerous 
quotations, that this change was not introduced until after the 
close of the second century, and that up to that time, pres- 
byters and bishops were, as in the times of the apostles 
themselves, of one grade, and had the same powers. 

I may state here, that for my quotations from the ancient 
fathers, I am mainly indebted to Coleman's " Christian Anti- 
quities" and "Apostolical and Primitive Church," to Eusebius, 
and to the ecclesiastical histories of Neander and Gieseler. 

I cite first, the testimony of Clement, who wrote about A. D. 
96. His epistle, written in the name of the church at Rome to 
the church at Corinth, is the earliest and most authentic of all 
the writings of the apostolical fathers, and was held in such 
high esteem by the early christians, that it was publicly read 
for the common benefit in their assemblies, in the same manner 
as the sacred scriptures. — See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 3, c. 16. 
No ancient writing of its class is of comparable authority with 
historians. This father, in his entire epistle, mentions but two 
grades of officers in the church, bishops and deacons; his style 
being precisely similar to that of the New Testament writers. 
No intimation can be gathered from him of the existence of 
such a person at Corinth as a prelate; but he invariably speaks 
of the presbyters who had been rejected by that church, as 
persons holding the highest ministerial rank. He says, — Epist. 
sec. 42, p. 57, — "Preaching therefore in countries and cities. 
10 



194 THE CHURCH, 

they, i. e. the apostles, appointed the first fruits of their labors, 
having, by the spirit, judged them worthy, bishops and deacons 
of them that should believe." These, according to Clement, 
are the two offices in the church, as it was originally consti- 
tuted by the apostles. 

" It were a great sin in us," he says, — Sec. 44, p. 58, " if we 
should reject those who have blamelessly and piously discharged 
the functions of the episcopal office ; " and immediately adds ? 
" blessed are those presbyters, who, having finished their course, 
have obtained their final deliverance and reward." Will it be 
denied that he here identifies, as one and the same class of per- 
sons, presbyters and those who discharged the functions of the 
episcopal office? 

Says Riddle, — Christ. Antiq. page 5, comp. Waddington's 
Church Hist, page 35, and Campbell's Lectures, page 72, — 
" Clement, himself, was not even aware of the distinction be- 
tween presbyters and bishops, — terms which, in fact, he used 
as synonymous." 

The next witness is Poly carp, who, we are informed, was 
familiar with those who had seen the Lord, and is commonly 
supposed to have been the angel of the church at Smyrna, Rev. 
ii: 8. His testimony agrees exactly with Clement's. He 
knows of but two grades of officers in the church, presbyters 
and deacons. In his whole epistle he does not once use the 
word " bishop," but represents the presbyters as exercising all 
authority in the church, and discharging all ministerial func- 
tions, without affording the least intimation of any one being 
placed over them, or having authority superior to theirs. 

The salutation of his epistle is as follows : " Poly carp and the 
presbyters with him, to the church of God, dwelling at Philippi, 
mercy to you," &c. He was undoubtedly the president of the 
church at Smyrna, i. e. the elder whom the church had chosen 
to occupy the first place, and to conduct public worship ; in 
other words, their pastor, or if you please, in the scriptural sense, 
their bishop. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 195 

He exhorts the Philippians to " be subject to their presbyters 
and deacons; " an exhortation singularly inappropriate, if the 
government of their church had been committed to a bishop. 
In the fifth and sixth chapters he describes the qualifications 
necessary for presbyters and deacons, without any allusion to 
any higher office. 

. The epistle of Paul to the Philippians is addressed " to all 
the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons." He recognizes two grades of officers 
there, and only two, — bishops, universally conceded to have been 
simple presbyters, and deacons. Polycarp, like Clement, recog- 
nizes the same, showing that in his time, about the middle of 
the second century, there had been no change. Things re- 
mained precisely as they were, at the time when Episcopalians 
themselves confess that bishop and presbyter were convertible 
terms. 

Justin Martyr, who was cotemporary with Polycarp, gives 
testimony to the same effect. He describes — Apol. i, c, 65, p. 
82, also, c. 67, p. 83 — the mode of conducting public worship 
and of administering the Lord's supper in his time. In these 
accounts, no officers appear but the " president of the brethren," 
officiating as minister, and the deacons, who distribute the ele- 
ments of bread and wine to the communicants. This president 
(proestos,) is the person claimed by Episcopalians, if any one 
can be, as the prelatic bishop. But there is no ground, what- 
ever, for such an opinion. His duties are those of a mere 
pastor, and Justin says not one word which can possibly be so 
construed, as to make any thing more of him than the officiat- 
ing presbyter. He is distinguished from the deacons, but from 
no other class of officers in the church. Says Milton, — prose 
works, Griswold's edition, vol. 1, p. 37— "But that place of 
Justin Martyr, serves rather to convince the author, than to 
make for him, where the name 'proestos ton adelphon] the 
president or pastor of the brethren, (for to what end is he their 
president but to teach them ?) can not be limited to signify a 



196 THE CHURCH, 

prelatical bishop, but rather communicates that Greek appella- 
tion to every ordinary presbyter ; for there he tells what the 
christians had wont to do in their several congregations, — to read 
and expound, to pray and administer ; all which, he says, the 
proestos, or antistes, did. Are these the offices only of a 
bishop, or shall we think that every congregation, where these 
things were done, which he attributes to this antistes, had a 
bishop present among them ? — unless they had as many an- 
tistites as presbyters, which this place rather seems to imply ; 
and so we may infer, even from their own alledged authority, 
1 that antistes was nothing else than presbyter.' 

Ireneus, who died soon after the commencement of the third 
century, uses the terms " bishop " and " presbyter " interchange- 
ably, as having the same meaning. Speaking of Marcion, 
Valentinus, Cerinthus, and other heretics, he says — Adv. Haer. 
L. 3, c. 2, sec. 2 — ■ " When we refer them to that apostolic 
tradition, which is preserved in the churches, through the suc- 
cession of their presbyters, these men oppose the tradition; 
pretending that, being more wise than not only the presbyters 
but the apostles themselves, they have found the uncorrupted 
truth." Let it be observed, that here the tradition from the 
apostles is spoken of as preserved through the succession of 
presbyters. In the very next section, pursuing the same sub- 
ject, he styles these same presbyters bishops. He says — " We 
can enumerate those who were constituted by the apostles 
bishops in the churches, and their successors, even down to our 
time. But because it would be tedious, in such a volume as 
this, to enumerate the successions in all the churches, showing 
you the tradition and declared faith," &c. It is thus evident 
that Ireneus still used the term "bishop" in the scriptural 
sense, and that so late as his time presbyter and bishop were 
synonymous words. 

Again, — Eusebius, book 5, ch. 20 — Ireneus calls Polycarp 
bishop, and yet uses concerning him the following language : 
" And I can bear witness in the sight of God, that if that 






ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 197 

blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing as 
this," (fee. 

Again. Ireneus says, — L. 4, c. 26, pp. 262, 263 — "We 
ought to obey those presbyters in the church, who have succes- 
sion, as we have shown, from the apostles; who, with the 
succession of the episcopate, received the certain gift of truth, 
according to the good pleasure of the father. 

" And truly, they who by many are regarded as presbyters, 
but serve their own pleasures, and not having the fear of God 
in their hearts, but elated with the pride of their exaltation to 
the chief seat, commit wickedness in secret, saying, no one 
seeth us — they shall be convicted. From all such we ought 
to withdraw, and as we have said, to adhere to those who 
maintain the doctrine of the apostles, and who, with the 
order of the presbytership preserve sound doctrine, and a 
blameless conversation for the confirmation and reproof of 
others." 

Again — L. 4, c. 26, sec. 1 — he says, that "they who 
cease to serve the church in the ministry, are a reproach to the 
sacred order of the presbyters." The same persons in the 
immediate context are called " bishops" 

In his letter to Victor, at Rome, — Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5> 
c. 20 — he speaks of the presbyters who had presided over 
the church in that city before that bishop, and of one particu- 
larly, Anicetus, whom Poly carp had urged in vain to " retain 
the usage of the presbyters who had preceded him." 

These quotations from Ireneus do not require to be com- 
mented upon. Their testimony is plain and directly to' the 
point. They definitely settle the question that, in his time, 
nothing was known of an episcopal order in the ministry, dis- 
tinct from presbyters and above them. The presbyters them- 
selves, according to New Testament usage, are represented as 
bishops, having, as Presbyterians maintain, the true "succession 
from the apostles, who with the succession of the episcopate 
have received the certain gift of truth." Our adversaries may 



198 THE CHURCH, 

attempt, with their glosses, to avert the force of this witness 
against them, but they cannot explain away the fact which he 
asserts in so many ways, that, in his day, there was no distinction 
between the episcopal and the presbyterial order. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 194, illustrating another sub- 
ject by the ministry of the christian church, says — Paedag., 
Lib., 3, p. 264 — "Just so in the church, the presbyters are 
entrusted with the dignified ministry; the deacons, with the 
subordinate." Does he know of any other order of officers 
than those which he here names ? How singular would be his 
manner of speaking, if there were an episcopal order above, 
and distinct from, those whom he describes as " entrusted with 
the dignified ministry." 

This father, in his treatise — " What rich man can be saved ? " 
chapter 42, pp. 667-669, relates — that the apostle John, being 
deeply interested in the singular beauty of a young man, whom 
he on one occasion observed in a christian assembly, turned in 
the presence of the church and commended him " to the bishop 
who presided over all" with strict charge that he should 
watch over him, and be responsible for his safety. The narra- 
tive then informs us that "this presbyter" took the young 
man to his own house, and endeavored to discharge the duty 
which the apostle had enjoined upon him. The young man 
afterward was seduced from his protector, and lost. John, on 
his return, addressed this presbyter as a bishop, saying, " 
bishop, restore to us your charge." Here again, the terms 
bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. 

Tertullian, cotemporary with the last witness, both having 
died the same year, A. D. 220, describes the worship of chris- 
tian assemblies in terms very similar to those employed by 
Justin. He says — Apol., c. 59 — "Certain approved elders 
preside, who have obtained that honor, not by price, but by 
the evidence of their fitness." He says — De Corona., c. 3, 
p. 102 — 'We never take from the hands of others than 
presidents, prcesidentium, the sacrament of the eucharist." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 199 

This president is beyond dispute identical with Justin Martyr's 
proestos; and we are thus informed distinctly, that the proestos 
was aw approved elder, chosen by the people, for his fitness, 
to be their minister. 

Can any candid person examine these testimonies, and have 
a doubt remaining, that for the first two centuries, at least, the 
term " bishop " retained in the church its scriptural meaning, 
and that bishops and presbyters were the same ? I see no way 
for an honest denial of these facts. If then, during these two 
centuries, bishops ordained, it is but another form of saying that 
presbyters did so. 

Jerome, who flourished in the fifth century, asserts what I 
have now established, by cotemporary authorities, as an histo- 
rical fact, which in his time could not be disputed. In his 
commentary on Titus i: 5, he sets forth, in the most forcible 
manner, the scripture doctrine on this subject of the equality of 
presbyters with bishops, and adds, " Our intention in these 
remarks is to show, that among the ancients, presbyters and 
bishops were the very same, but that by little and little, (pau- 
latini) that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, 
the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the 
presbyters therefore know that they are subjected by the custom 
of the church, to him who is set over them, so let the bishops 
know that they are greater than presbyters, more by custom 
than by any real appointment of Christ. 11 

Mr. Schuyler has endeavored — pp. 95, 96, 97, — to do away 
with this testimony, by affirming, that the change of which 
Jerome speaks, took place in the apostles' time, and must there- 
fore have been approved of by them. But how utterly inconsis- 
tent is this with the fact, that it is on the very authority of the 
apostles themselves, in their writings, that Jerome grounds his 
argument for the original equality of bishops and presbyters. 
Let it be proved from the writings of the apostles, that the 
change of which Jerome testifies, was introduced in their 
day. I know that the phrase, " little by little 11 (paulatim,) is 



200 THE CHURCH, 

indefinite as to time, but it is not indefinite as to the fact, 
which alone is important, that the change was not brought about 
by authority, but that it came in gradually, as all new customs do. 
The testimony of this father is clear and explicit in regard to 
the main thing, that, according to the original constitution of 
the church, bishops and presbyters were the same, and that the 
distinction between them, which prevailed in his age, was not 
by divine appointment, but a human invention for the cure of 
schism. 

Admissions from distinguished Episcopalians on this point 
might be furnished to almost any extent, but it is not necessary. 

It may be expected that I shall offer some positive and direct 
testimony in favor of the practice of ordination by presbyters 
in the early church. 

Says Dr. Miller, — see his letters, page 108, — "The friends of 
prelacy have often, and with much apparent confidence, chal- 
lenged us to produce out of all the early fathers, a single 
instance of an ordination performed by presbyters. Those who 
give this challenge might surely be expected in all decency and 
justice, to have a case of Episcopal ordination ready to be 
brought forward from the same venerable records. But have 
they ever produced such a case ? They have not. Nor can 
they produce it. As there is unquestionably no instance men- 
tioned in scripture, of any person with the title of bishop 
performing an ordination ; so it is equally certain that no such 
instance has been found in any christian writer within the first 
two centuries. Nor can a single instance be produced of a 
person, already ordained as a presbyter, receiving a new and 
second ordination as a bishop. To find a precedent favorable 
to their doctrine, the advocates of episcopacy have been under 
the necessity, of wandering into periods, when the simplicity of 
the gospel, had, in a considerable degree, given place to the 
devices of men ; and when the man of sin had commenced 
that system of unhallowed usurpation, which for so many 
centuries corrupted and degraded the church of God." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 201 

What Episcopalians can not produce for their system, we 
can for ours. 

Fermilian, writing from Asia Minor to Cyprian in Car- 
thage, A. D. 256, in explanation of the ecclesiastical polity of the 
churches there, says — Cyp. Epist. 75, p. 145, — "All power 
and grace is vested in the church, where the presbyters preside, 
who have authority to baptize, to impose hands, (in the recon- 
ciling of penitents) and to ordain? On this, Coleman remarks, 
: ' The episcopal hierarchy was not fully established in these 
eastern churches, so early as in the western. Accordingly we 
(ind the presbyters here, in the full enjoyment of their original 
right to ordain. The general tenor of the letter, in connection 
with this passage, exhibits the popular government of the apos- 
tolical churches, as yet continuing among the churches in Asia. 
The highest authority is vested in the members of the church, 
who still administer their own government. No restrictions 
fiave yet been laid upon the presbyters in the administration of 
ordinances. Whatever clerical grace is essential for the right 
idministration of baptism, of consecration, and of ordination, is 
still retained by the presbyters." 

The author of the commentaries of the epistles of St. Paul, 
3ither Ambrose or Hilary, more probably the latter, says — on 
Eph. iv: 11, 12, — " The apostle calls Timothy, created by him 
i presbyter, a bishop, for the first presbyters were called bishops, 
:hat when he departed, the one that came next might succeed 
him. Moreover, in Egypt the presbyters confirm, if a bishop 
oe not present. But because the presbyters that followed 
began to be found unworthy to hold the primacy, the custom 
was altered ; the council foreseeing that not order but merit, 
ought to make a bishop ; and that he should be appointed by 
the judgment of many priests, lest an unworthy person should 
rashly usurp the office, and be a scandal to many." 

It must be admitted, that according to the understanding of 
this author, one made a presbyter, by the apostolical rule,^ 
needed no other ordination in order to assume the functions ot 
10* 



202 THE CHURCH, 

the episcopal office, and that the highest presbyter in any 
church, was ipso facto, its bishop, until in later times a different 
custom was introduced. 

The same author says again, — on 1 Tim. iii : 8, — " After 
the bishop, the apostle has subjoined the ordination (order) of 
the deaconship. Why, but that the ordination (order) of a 
bishop and presbyter, is one and the same ? for each is a priest, 
but the bishop is chief, so that every bishop is a presbyter, but 
not every presbyter a bishop. For he is bishop who is chief 
among the presbyters. Moreover, he notices that Timothy was 
ordained a presbyter, but inasmuch as he had no other above 
him, he was a bishop" Hence he shows that Timothy, a pres- 
byter, might ordain a bishop, because of his equality with him. 
u For it was neither lawful nor right for an inferior to ordain 
a superior, inasmuch as one can not confer what he has not 
received. 

On this, and other similar authorities, Coleman remarks, — 
Apost. and Prim. Church, p. 182, — " The full sacerdotal power 
is possessed by every presbyter, according to the authority of 
the earliest fathers. The apostolical fathers know no distinction 
between bishops and presbyters ; and later ones make no differ- 
ence in their order or grade of rank. The distinction of bishop 
is only a conventional arrangement, made for mutual conve- 
nience, but in no wise incapacitating the presbyter for the per- 
formance of any of his sacerdotal offices. The right to ordain 
still belongs to him ; and the bishop, when selected to preside 
over his fellow-presbyters, receives no new consecration or 
ordination, but continues himself to ordain as a presbyter. 

" Such is a plain statement of this controverted point, and 
such the exposition which many Episcopal writers, even at the 
present day, give of this subject. But if the delusive doctrine 
of divine right and apostolical succession be given up, the valid- 
ity of presbyterian ordination is conceded. Such Episcopalians, 
therefore, themselves, afford us the fullest refutation of the 
absurd and arrogant pretensions of high church episcopacy." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 203 

Jerome, in his famous epistle to Evagrius, or Evangelus, 
rebukes with great severity those who had preferred deacons in 
honor, " above presbyters, I e. bishops:' Having thus asserted 
the identity of presbyters and bishops, he goes on to prove his 
position by Phil, i: 1, Acts xx: 17, 28, Titus i: 5, 1 Tim. iv: 
14, and 1 Pet. v : 1. He says,—" Does the testimony of these 
men seem of small account to you ? Then clangs the gospel 
trumpet, — that son of thunder whom Jesus so much loved, and 
who drank at the fountain of truth from the Saviour's breast. 
< The presbyter to the elect lady and' her children,'— 2 John 
i : 1 ; and in another epistle, ' The Presbyter to the well-beloved 
Gaius,' — 3 John i: 1. 

" As to the fact, that afterward, one was elected to preside 
over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism ; lest 
every one drawing his proselytes to himself, should rend the 
church of Christ; for even at Alexandria, from the evangelist 
Mark to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters 
always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior 
station, and called him bishop, in the same manner as if an 
army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose 
one of their number, whom they knew to be particularly 
active, and should call him archdeacon; for, excepting ordina- 
tion, what is done by a bishop, that may not be done by a 
presbyter ? " 

The bishop, then, received his authority from the presbyters. 
They made him. All the ordination that he had from any 
source, he had from them, and such, Jerome tells us, was the 
usage "in every country T 

As to the question, — "For excepting ordination, what is 
done by a bishop that may not be done by a presbyter ? " The 
reader will perceive that he is referring to a distinction of 
official powers that had obtained in his time, and arguing 
from the fact that no other distinction was then recognized, 
for the original identity of the episcopal and presbyterial 
offices. It is equivalent therefore, to the strongest kind of an 



204 THE CHURCH, 

affirmation, that originally, ordination was one of the functions 
of presbyters. 

It will be remembered that Jerome flourished near the latter 
end of the fourth century, at which time, it is well known that 
Episcopal usurpations had almost universally crowded out the 
primitive order of church polity. He wrote against the very 
same prelatical assumptions that we complain of and protest 
against. Bishops had begun to assume exclusive rights as a 
distinct and higher order of the christian ministry, to claim 
that the apostolical succession was with them alone, and to 
assert authority, as if they themselves were apostles, over other 
ministers. Against these claims, utterly without foundation in 
the scriptures, or in the history of the church, this learned 
father, second to none of that age, hurls his indignant rebukes, 
and teaches the bishops that their order, as distinct from pres- 
byters, was of recent date, founded on no divine appointment, 
but merely on a custom of the church; and that, in point of 
fact, they were nothing more or better, in the actual grade of 
their ministry than presbyters, having no right whatever which 
the presbyters had not conceded to them. 

Coleman says truly, — Apost. and Prim. Church, p. 189, — 
" The rights of presbyters to ordain, and the validity of pres- 
byterian ordination were never called in question, until the 
bishops began, about the middle of the third century, to assert 
the doctrine of the apostolical succession." 

We ask from our Episcopal brethren, clear evidence from the 
first two centuries, that there was any recognized distinction 
between bishops and presbyters, as to the grade of their min- 
istry. A mere blazoning of the name " bishop," they must see, 
can be of no avail in this argument. We know well enough 
that there were those who were called bishops, but what is 
that to us, or what weight can it have in this dispute. Let 
them prove that these bishops were any thing more than the 
pastors of the churches, the presiding presbyters. Let them 
prove that they belonged to a distinct and peculiar order; that 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 205 

being presbyters, they were made bishops by a new ordina- 
tion. They know that they can not prove this. It is all in 
vain to challenge them to the proof of it. All that they can 
give us, is the testimony of hierarchists like themselves, who 
lived in those later times, when episcopacy had become gene- 
rally prevalent-; testimony which we value no more than we 
do that of hierarchists living now. If they can not give the 
proof for which we ask, it is absurd for them, in the face of 
proof which we bring, to deny, that in the times referred to, 
presbyters ordained, and that by the original constitution of the 
church, they were the sole ordainers. 

Among the fathers of the first two centuries, our opponents 
rely almost exclusively on Ignatius. That the real value of this 
father's testimony may be understood, I refer the reader to the 
article headed " The Ignatian Epistles," in my notice of iMr. 
Schuyler's appendix. Among all the early christian writers, 
no one is so little to be relied upon as a witness. I do not 
mean to speak disrespectfully of Ignatius, but it is notorious 
that forgeries innumerable have been committed upon his 
name, and that his genuine works have been so obscured by 
interpolations, that it is hardly* possible to know what was 
written by him, and what was not. Of the seven epistles now 
ascribed to him, four are certainly doubtful, and recent evidence 
has been discovered which seems likely to divest them even of 
the little authority which they have hitherto had. Neverthe- 
less, let us examine our author's authorities from this father, and 
see what, even admitting their genuineness, is their real value 
to his cause. 

First, he quotes from the epistles to the Magnesians : 
" Seeing then that I have been judged worthy to' see you, by 
Damas, your most excellent bishop, and by your very worthy 
presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and by my fellow-servant 
Sotio, the deacon, in whom I rejoice, forasmuch as he is subject 
unto his bishop, as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery 
as to the law of Jesus Christ; I determined to write unto you." 



206 THE CHURCH, 

Now, will my brother so impose upon himself and his readers, 
as to maintain that because, in the church of the Magnesians 
there was a person whom they styled " bishop" with others 
whom they called "presbyters" and a deacon, that therefore 
the Magnesians had the episcopal government, as he under- 
stands it! Was that bishop a prelate? was he of an order 
distinct from the presbyters ? This is just the way in which 
our brethren of the episcopal faith are ever reasoning. When 
the writings of the apostles in the New Testament are con- 
sidered, they have a boundless contempt for names. Then 
they look at things and at nothing but things ; but the very mo- 
ment they come to the fathers, names become all-important^ 
and for things they care nothing at all. There is absolutely 
nothing in this passage from Ignatius, which can be tortured 
into a significancy adverse to our doctrine, that, in the time of 
this father, one elder, chosen by the people, was the minister of 
the church under the name of president, or bishop, with no 
distinction in his grade of office, from the other presbyters. 

In my sermon, I quoted Ignatius as commending subjection 
" to the presbytery as to the law of Christ," in proof that pres- 
byters, in his day, held the supreme authority in the church. 
I refer the reader again to those very words in the passage 
above cited by Mr. Schuyler, as proving what I affirmed in my 
sermon that they proved. Who composed the presbytery? 
All the presbyters, undoubtedly, including him — who, as the 
minister or presiding elder, was called bishop. Will our author 
deny that the supreme authority was vested in that body ? 

Ignatius commends Sotio, the deacon, for being " subject unto 
his bishop, as to the grace of God." The bishop, as such, is 
here spoken of as the pastor or spiritual teacher, and not as 
the ruler. The words can not bear any other interpretation. 
Sotio was subject to his bishop as a spiritual teacher, but " to 
the presbytery " (not presbyters, as Mr. Schuyler has printed 
it, through mistake, I suppose,) " as to the law of Jesus Christ. 
Where did Ignatius understand the government to be ? Not 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 207 

in the bishop, but in the presbytery. This is so plain, that it 
can not be reasonably disputed. For an illustration of the 
sense in which " subjection to the bishop as to the grace of 
God " is to be understood, the reader may be referred to the 
latter part of the fifth, and the first part of the sixth chapters 
of 2 Corinthians. The apostle having described himself and 
his fellow-apostles as entrusted with the ministry of reconcilia- 
tion, and as being, in this respect, " embassadors for Christ," 
says, " We then, as workers together with him, beseech you 
also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." As minis- 
ters of the gospel, not as governors, they brought the grace of 
God to men. It was committed to them for dispensation, as 
preachers of it. Subjection to them, or to any ministers, there- 
fore, as to the grace of God, was subjection to them as God's 
messengers, by believing and obeying the truth which they 
preached. Very different is the idea conveyed, when we read 
of subjection " to the presbytery, as to the law of Jesus Christ" 
In the other case, it is subjection to a religious teacher; here 
it is subjection to ecclesiastical governors. 

Our author's next quotation is from the epistle of Ignatius 
to the Trallians, — " He that is within the altar is pure, but he 
that is without, i. e. that does any thing without the bishop, 
and presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in his conscience" 
Not to say any thing of the christian doctrine expressed in 
this quotation, which, so far as it is plain, is very absurd, what 
is gained for episcopacy by the mere occurrence of the terms 
" bishop, and presbyters, and deacons ? " Every well organized 
Presbyterian church, at the present day, has a "bishop, and 
presbyters, and deacons." Was the bishop of whom Ignatius 
speaks, a diocesan bishop or prelate? What tend of a bishop 
was he ? That is the question. We have heaped proof upon 
proof that the bishops of those days were mere presbyters, 
chosen from among their fellow-presbyters to occupy the chief 
place, to conduct public worship, and administer the sacraments, 
and that they were not reordained. It is positively sickening 



208 THE CHURCH, 

to have such testimonies as these forever crowded before us, 
when our opponents must know that they determine nothing. 

This is the character of all the testimony from Ignatius. He 
speaks often of bishops, and very extravagantly of the dignity 
of their office, and often speaks of them in connection with 
presbyters and deacons, but never once affirms any thing from 
which it can be inferred that bishops belonged to a higher and 
distinct order in the ministry. His language is always such as 
a very high-church Presbyterian, filled with extravagant and 
absurd notions respecting ministerial authority, would be likely 
to use. 

Mr. Schuyler says, in support of the authority of Ignatius, 
that " Poly carp, in his letter to the Philippians, indorses all 
that Ignatius wrote " He can not mean to say that Poly carp 
endorses the seven epistles. Does Poly carp endorse the epistle 
to the Magnesians ? or the epistle to the Trallians ? or the epis- 
tles to the Smyrnaeans, and the Philadelphians ? He endorses 
three; one to the Romans, one to the Ephesians, and one to 
himself, but no more; and there is no evidence in all his 
writings that he ever knew of another. It is therefore, 
extremely unfair, to say the least of it, in our author, having, 
with a single exception, made all his quotations from the 
epistles which Polycarp never once alludes to, to sustain them 
by Polycarp's testimony respecting only the three, 

Ireneus is quoted by Mr. S., as saying, — " We can reckon up 
those whom the apostles ordained to be bishops in the several 
churches, and who they were that succeeded them, down to our 
time. And had the apostles known any hidden mysteries, 
which they imparted to none but the perfect, as the heretics 
pretend, they would have committed them to those men to 
whom they committed the churches themselves; for they 
desired to have those in all things perfect and unreprovable, 
whom they left to be their successors, and to whom they com- 
mitted the apostolic authority." " What proof," says Mr. S., 
"can we desire more positive than this, that the bishops 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 209 

were successors of the apostles, and invested with apostolic 
authority ? " l 

Better proof, we say, could not be desired. Our author is 
quite right; but then that troublesome question comes up 
again,-" What does Ireneus mean by bishops? Does he mean 
an order of ministers distinct from presbyters, and above them | 
What kind of bishops did the apostles place in the churches? 
If we will allow them to testify for themselves, the question is 
easily settled. In their time it is confessed that the bishops 
were simple presbyters. Ireneus explains his own meaning in 
the section just preceding the one from which our authors 
extract is taken. The passage has been quoted once, but I will 
quote it again here. Speaking of certain heretics, he says,— 
" When we refer them to that apostolic tradition, which is 
preserved in the churches, through the succession of their 
presbyters, these men oppose the tradition; pretending that, 
being more wise than not only the presbyters, but the 
apostles themselves, they have found the uncorrupted truth." 
The bishops, therefore, whom the apostles ordained over the 
churches, and whom they invested with their authority, were 
mere presbyters, according to the understanding of Ireneus 
himself. 

" To the same effect," Mr. S. continues to say, " speaks Ter- 
tullian, who clearly recognizes the three orders." To the same 
effect also, is our reply. Tertullian certainly speaks of bishops 
who were placed over the churches by the apostles, or by apos- 
tolic men, (i. e. those evangelists who acted as assistants of the 
apostles,) and he speaks of a succession of these bishops, but 
does he tell us that they were a distinct order in the ministry ? 
Not at all. He tells us plainly that they w r ere not a distinct 
order in the ministry. He says, — De Bapt. c. 17, — "The 
highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right of granting 
baptism ; afterwat d, the presbyter and deacons ; not, however, 
without the authority of the bishop, for the honor of the 
church." He is speaking here of the rules, or customs of 



210 THE CHURCH, 

religious service in a single congregation. His expression, 
" the highest priest," implies the existence of inferiors of the 
same order; and comparing his language with other testimo- 
nies of that time, it is perfectly undeniable that the bishop, of 
whom he speaks, is only a presbyter raised to the office of 
president, or pastor, 

" Tertullian" says Coleman, "represents the African division 
of the church, in which the episcopal government was earliest 
developed; but even in these churches, the apostolical order 
had not yet been fully superseded by the hierarchy. The sum 
of his testimony, as well as of that of all who had gone before 
him, (he flourished A. D. 200,) is, that there was but one order 
in the church superior to that of the deacons. The gov- 
ernment of the church was, in his time, in a transition state. 
He stands, as has been justly observed, 6 on the boundary be- 
tween two different epochs in the development of the church.' 
Henceforth, the bishop assumes more prominence, but as yet he 
has not begun to be acknowledged as one of an order superior 
to the presbyters." 

Tertullian, our author says, "recognizes the three orders." 
What is the proof that Tertullian recognizes the three orders ? 
Simply this, that he speaks of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. 
If the mere use of these different names of office, proves that 
there were three orders of the ministry in the ancient church, 
then might it not be proved in the same way, that there are 
three orders of the ministry in the Presbyterian church now ? 
for we also have bishops, presbyters, and deacons. In the 
English church, there are archbishops, bishops, presbyters, arch- 
deacons, and deacons. Might it not, on the same principle, be 
argued that there are five orders of the ministry in that church ? 
The reasoning would be false, for it is known that different 
titles of office are given to persons belonging to the same order. 
Precisely so, we affirm, that different titles of office are given 
by Tertullian and other ancient writers to persons belonging to 
the same ministerial order. Tertullian and others may speak 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 211 

of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, but this proves nothing. 
We want specific evidence, which can not be furnished, that 
bishops and presbyters were distinct in the grade of their min- 
istry. While no evidence is produced that they were so, we 
are able to produce it, in. a perfect abundance, that they were 
not. What our author cites as proof, therefore, is no proof at 
all. His conclusion is the merest possible assumption. 

His next witness is Cyprian, who flourished in Africa, about 
the middle of the third century. We do not deny that at this 
time, and especially in Africa, the original and apostolical order 
of church government, was, to a very considerable extent, dis- 
placed. Cyprian was himself the most violent advocate of 
episcopal authority in his time ; and, more than any one else, is 
chargeable with the innovations which were then introduced. 
But he was not unresisted in his usurpations. The passage 
quoted by Mr. Schuyler, shows how he was opposed, and how 
the presbyters, even so late as the middle of the third century, 
and in Africa, contended for their rights. He complains that 
" the presbyters," " in disdain of the bishop's rule," " assumed 
to themselves unlimited power," and seems to be filled with 
indignation against them for their presumption. The passage 
which our author has cited, instead of making for his cause, is 
directly against it ; inasmuch as it proves most conclusively that 
our representation of the state of things in Cyprian's time is 
just: that episcopacy, instead of being established, was only 
struggling for an establishment; that the bishops and presby- 
ters were at strife,— the latter to preserve their ancient privi- 
leges, and the former to secure a monarchical ascendency. 

With all Cyprian's high claims for bishops, and arrogation 
of exclusive authority for them, it is a fact well attested that, 
in times of serious difficulty, he did often come down from his 
elevation, and condescend to admit them to a participation in 
the exercise of governmental powers. Under the pressure of a 
necessity, he could give up his unwarrantable pretensions, and 



212 THE CHURCH, 

consent to act with presbyters, as one of them. The proof of 
this has been elsewhere afforded. 

Our author concludes his notice of ancient authorities with 
an attempt to explain away the testimony of Jerome, He says, 
page 95 — "The passage on which they (Presbyterians) place 
the most stress, is simply an expression of opinion on the part of 
St. Jerome. It is not his testimony as to the fact whether, in 
his day, bishops were an order superior to the presbyters, but 
the expression of his belief that very early in the church it 
became necessary, to prevent schisms, to place one, chosen from 
among the presbyters, over the rest ; that the whole care of the 
church should be committed to him." To prove this, Mr. S. 
quotes a passage which, as he quotes it, is not the strong pas- 
sage on which we chiefly rely. What says Jerome ? Having 
stated the fact that originally presbyters and bishops were one 
and the same, he adds, " Should any one think that this is my 
private opinion, and not the doctrine of the scriptures, let him 
read the words of the apostle," &c. Further on, he says — 
" Our intention in these remarks is to show, that, among the 
ancients, presbyters and bishops were the very same ; but 
that, by little and little, that the plants of dissensions might be 
plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. 
As the presbyters, therefore, know (a mere opinion, was it ?) 
that they are subjected, by the custom of the church, to him 
that is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are 
greater than the presbyters more by custom than by any real 

APPOINTMENT OF CHRIST." 

We admit that in Jerome's time, A. D. 377, bishops were 
superior to presbyters. The very passage which we quote 
proves it. It is to no purpose, therefore, that Mr. S. quotes 
other passages from this father, to establish that point. Jerome, 
testifying as to the primitive constitution of the church, and 
the historical fact of the orginal equality of bishops and presby- 
ters, is one thing ; and Jerome, testifying of the state of things 
in the church, at his time, is another. Jerome, testifying of the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 2l3 

superiority of bishops over presbyters, at the end of the fourth 
century, is a very different affair from Jerome testifying of the 
manner in which that superiority had been obtained, by the 

CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, and NOT BY ANY REAL APPOINTMENT 

of Christ! We do not cite this father as a witness of the 
form of church polity in his own day, but as a witness of what 
in his day was known in regard to the early polity of 

THE CHURCH, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE POLITY THEN 

existing had been introduced. He is the witness of what, 
in his day, were well understood historical facts. 

Not one of the authorities which our author has furnished, 
helps his cause in the least. He has produced absolutely noth- 
ing which goes to show that, during the first two centuries, 
bishops were regarded as composing a distinct order in the 
ministry, — and no evidence of this has ever been furnished by 
any writer. The whole amount of the proof consists of the 
mere fact, that some of the writers of that age use the name 
" bishop," and that they speak of " bishops, presbyters, and dea- 
cons," without affording a hint, even, that there was any 
inequality of rank, as ministers, between the two first-named 
classes of persons. Of prelacy and diocesanship they find no 
signs, till they come down to a period in which we have never 
denied that the primitive and apostolical order of church gov- 
ernment had begun to be crowded out by episcopal usurpations. 

In reference to what we alledge and prove of the change 
which took place in the polity of the christian church after 
the close of the second century, Mr. S. observes, page 102, — 
" Surely the Presbyterian form of government must have been 
essentially defective, which could admit of an entire change in 
the organization of the church, in so short a time." A little 
further on, he adds, " But the strangest of all, my brethren, is, 
that so great a change could have been made ; a change affect- 
ing the essential constitution of the church, and within the 
short space of forty years, and not a record of this astonishing 



214 THE CHURCH, 

revolution be found upon a single page of our ecclesiastical 
history." 

What does he mean by " our ecclesiastical history ? " Does 
he mean the ecclesiastical histories written by prelatists ? We 
should hardly expect to find the record of which he speaks on 
their pages. There are ecclesiastical histories, however, in 
abundance, on whose pages the record may be found. Mo- 
sheim, beyond all comparison, until recently, the ablest and 
most learned historian of the church that ever wrote, traces 
that revolution with the utmost minuteness in all its successive 
steps. Gieseler does the same ; and Neander, now the acknow- 
ledged prince in this department of literature, throws such a 
flood of light upon this subject, that whoever reads him must 
be blind to doubt. Where do Mosheim and Gieseler and 
Meander obtain their information ? From the sources of all 
church history, — the New Testament and the authentic writings 
of each succeeding age. How do we know that such a revolu- 
tion did actually occur? By comparing the form of church 
government, as it appears in the writings of the apostles and 
the fathers of the first two centuries, with the form of church 
government as it appears in the writings of the ages following. 
Could there be a more direct and reliable method of getting at 
the truth? 

Says Dr. Mason, in his book on Episcopacy, page 220, — 
" The United States are a republic, with a single executive, 
periodically chosen. Suppose that three hundred years hence, 
they should be under the reign of a hereditary monarch, and 
the question should then be started whether this was the origi- 
nal order or not? Those who favor the negative, go back to 
the written constitution, framed in 1787, and show that a 
hereditary monarchy was never contemplated in that instrument. 
Others contend that, " The expressions of the constitution are 
indefinite; there are some things, indeed, which look a little 
republican-like, and might be accommodated to the infant state 
of the nation ; but whoever shall consider the purposes of the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 215 

order therein prescribed, and the nature of the powers therein 
granted, will clearly perceive that the one can not be at- 
tained, nor the other exercised, but in a hereditary monarchy." 
Well, the constitution is produced; it is examined again and 
again, but no hereditary monarchy is recognized there; it 
breathes republicanism throughout. What, now, would be 
thought of a man who should gravely answer,—" The concur- 
rent testimony of all the historians of those times is, that at, or 
very shortly after the death of the members of the convention 
of 1787, monarchy prevailed throughout the United States; 
and this is proof positive that it was established by the 
convention ? " 

"Nay," the first would rejoin, "your facts are of no avail. 
The question is not, what prevailed after the constitution was 
adopted, but what is the constitution itself? There it is; let 
it argue its own cause." 

" But," says the other, "how could so great a change, as that 
from a republic to a monarchy, happen in so short a time ? and 
without resistance ; or, what is still more astonishing, without 
notice?" 

" You may settle that," retorts the first, " at your leisure. 
That there has been a material change, I see as clearly as the 
light; how that change was effected is none of my concern. 
It is enough for me that the constitution, fairly interpreted, 
knows nothing of the existing monarchy." 

" Every child can perceive who would have the best of the 
argument, and it is just such an argument that we are man- 
aging with the Episcopalians." 

Again. Dr. Mason says, page 240 — " Nothing can be more 
pointless and pithless than the declamation * * * on the 
change which took place in the original order of the church. 
They assume a false fact, to wit, that the change must have 
happened, if it happened at all, instantaneously: and then 
they expatiate with great vehemence on the impossibility of 
such an event. This is mere noise, The change was not 



216 THE CHURCH, 

instantaneous, nor sudden. The testimony of Jerome, which 
declares that it was gradual, has sprung a mine under the very 
foundation of their edifice, and blown it into the air. Were we 
inclined to take up more of the reader's time on this topic, we 
might turn their own weapon, such as it is, against themselves. 
They do not pretend that archbishops, patriarchs, and primates 
are of apostolical institution. They will not so insult the 
understandings and the senses of men, as to maintain that these 
officers have no more power than simple bishops. Where, 
then, were all the principles of adherence to apostolic order, 
when these creatures of human policy made their entrance into 
the church ? Among whom were the daring innovators to be 
found ? Where was the learning of the age ? Where its spirit 
of piety, and its zeal of martyrdom ? Where were the presby- 
ters? Where the bishops? What! all, all turned traitors at 
once? All, all conspire to abridge their own rights, and sub- 
mit their necks to the new-made superiors ? What ! none to 
reclaim or remonstrate ? Absurd ! Incredible ! Impossible ! 
These questions, and a thousand like them, might be asked by 
an advocate for the divine right of patriarchs, with as much 
propriety and force as they are asked by the advocates of the 
simpler episcopacy. And so, by vociferating on abstract prin- 
ciples, the evidence of men's eyes and ears is to be overturned, 
and they are to believe that there are not now, and never have 
been such things as archbishops, patriarchs, or primates, in the 
christianized world ; seeing that by the assumption of the argu- 
ment, they have no divine original ; and by its terms they could 
not have been introduced by mere human contrivance. 

" To return to Jerome. The prelatists being unable to evade 
his testimony concerning the change which was effected in the 
original order of the church, would persuade us that he means 
a change brought about by the authority of the apostles them- 
selves." (See Mr. Schuyler, pp. 96, 97.) " But the subterfuge 
is unavailing. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 217 

" (1.) It alledges a conjectural tradition against the authority 
of the written scriptures, for no trace of a change can be seen 
there. 

" (2.) It overthrows completely all the proof drawn for the 
hierarchy from the apostolic records. For if this change was 
introduced by the apostles after their canonical writings were 
closed, then it is vain to seek for it in their writings. The 
consequence is, that the hierarchists must either retreat from the 
New Testament, or abandon Jerome. 

" (3.) It makes this intelligent father a downright fool — to 
plead apostolic authority for the original equality of ministers ; 
and, in the same breath, to produce that same authority for the 
inequality which he was resisting ! 

" (4.) To crown the whole, it tells us that the apostles having 
fixed, under the influence of divine inspiration, an order for the 
church, found, upon a few years trial, that it would not do, and 
were obliged to mend it; only they forgot to apprise the 
churches of the alteration ; and so left the exploded order in 
the rule of faith, and the new order out of it ; depositing the 
commission of the prelates with that kind foster-mother of the 
hierarchy, tradition! " 

Mr. Schuyler speaks of this change as taking place " in the 
short space of forty years." This is to make it appear the 
more incredible. The truth is, that we discover no traces of 
the change until after the first two hundred years, a century at 
least after the death of the last apostle ; and during the whole 
of the next century we do not find the change " perfected." 
The entire period of the third and fourth centuries even, may 
be described as a period of conflict between the primitive 
and the prelatic forms of church polity, in which the latter 
gained more and more the ascendency. It was a very long 
time, before the church fully succumbed under episcopal usur- 
pation. Many presbyters, like Cyprian's in Carthage, continued 
to struggle for their ancient rights; and many an honest voice 
like St. Jerome's was raised, for many a year, in defense of the 
11 



218 THE CHURCH, 

ancient order ; but the power of the bishops, sustained by their 
influence over the uneducated masses, and at length by civil 
rulers, finally prevailed, and the hierarchy stretched its arms 
over the christian world, coercing every thing into a tame sub- 
mission to its will. Then, as the crowning scene of the same 
revolution, appeared the papacy ; and then, denser and darker, 
and more intolerable, grew that dreadful night, already begun, 
which for twelve hundred years hung over the church and 
the world. 

As to the idea that " the Presbyterian form of church gov- 
ernment must have been essentially defective, to admit of an 
entire change in so short a space of time," it is to be remarked, 
that our author assumes for us a claim which we do not make. 
We do not affirm that the primitive and apostolical order of 
the church was Presbyterian, in the present denominational 
sense of that term, as he seems inclined to intimate, but simply 
that it was presbyterial, i. e. established, so far as the ministry 
was concerned, upon the great principle of parity. For what is 
properly the presbyterian form of church government, we sim- 
ply maintain, that while in some respects it exists now under 
modifications, adapted, as we think wisely, to the present state 
of the church and of the world, it holds incorporated in itself 
all the great and essential features of the apostolical institution. 

If, in the wisdom of the men of the third and fourth centu- 
ries, the presbyterial order was judged to be defective, in not 
presenting sufficient barriers against the inroads of heresy and 
schism, it needs only to be remembered how sad a remedy 
that proved to be, which their wisdom, setting itself above the 
wisdom of God, devised. Whether the remedy proved not 
worse than the disease, let the long ages of darkness, and of 
hierarchical despotism, and depravity that ensued, bear witness. 

Whether I have succeeded in establishing my point, the right 
of presbyters, according to the original constitution of the 
church, to ordain, I am willing to submit to the candid and 
intelligent reader. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 219 

I shall conclude this part of my subject with remarking, that 
until very recently, the divine right of episcopacy was a pre- 
tension almost unheard of among Protestant Episcopalians. The 
view which we have given of its origin, was the view almost 
universally entertained in England, by intelligent men at the 
time of the reformation, and has been from that day down to 
the present time, until the comparatively recent revival of the 
Romish spirit in the English church. All the prominent Eng- 
lish reformers agreed with Cranmer, in his opinion formally 
expressed in writing, that " the bishops and priests were at one 
time one, and were no two things, but both one office in the 
beginning of Christ's religion." Later, when Charles First con- 
sulted with Lords Jermyn and Culpepper, and Mr. Ashburn- 
ham, all three Episcopalians, on the subject of the proposed act 
of parliament for abolishing episcopacy, and signified that he 
had conscientious scruples against giving it his assent, they re- 
plied, " If by conscience, your meaning is that you are obliged 
to do all in your power to support and maintain the functions 
of the bishops, as that which is the most ancient, reverend, and 
pious government of the church, we fully and heartily concur 
with you therein. But if by conscience, it is intended to assert 
that episcopacy, is jure divino exclusive, whereby no protestant 
(or rather christian) church can be acknowledged for such with- 
out a bishop, we must therein crave leave wholly to differ. 
And if we be not in error, we are in good company; there not 
being (as we have cause to believe) six persons of the protes- 
tant religion of the other opinion. Thus much we can add, 
that, at the treaty of Uxbridge, none of your divines then pre- 
sent, though much provoked thereunto, would maintain that 
(we might say uncharitable) opinion; no, not privately among 
your commissioners." 

Bishop White, whom all good men revered, in a pamphlet 
entitled " The Case of the Episcopal Church in the United 
States, Considered," has the following language, which I quote 
in this connection, on the authority of Rev. Win. C. Wisner: 



220 THE CHURCH, 

" Now, if even those who hold episcopacy to be of divine right, 
conceive the obligation to it not to be binding, when that idea 
would be destructive of public worship, much more must they 
think so, who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most 
ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the 
case. This, the author believes to be the sentiment of the great 
body of Episcopalians in America ; in which respect they have 
in their favor, unquestionably, the sense of the church of Eng- 
land, and, as he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished 
prelates for piety and abilities?' 

The recent changes of sentiment among Episcopalians, and 
especially among the Episcopal clergy in this country and in 
England, are ominous. The tendency toward Rome, evinced, 
not only by the growing popularity of Romish opinions, but by 
the matured result of innumerable perversions to the Romish 
faith, becoming every year more frequent, is well calculated to 
awaken the most alarming apprehensions. Romanists are in 
raptures, and begin to congratulate themselves that the day is 
now near at hand, when the Episcopal section of Protestantdom 
at least, shall be brought back to the bosom of their church* 
Yery recently, the Roman Catholic bishop of Buffalo, passing 
by the new and elegant church edifice now in process of erec- 
tion for the parish of St. Paul's, in this city, is reported to have 
said to a gentleman who was with him, — " That is well. They 
are building churches for us. We shall have them all in a few 
years." I do not believe that the bishop's expectations will be 
fully realized. God forbid that they should be. Yet if this 
calamity is to be avoided, there must be a speedy arrest of the 
refluent tide of opinions and sympathies in the Episcopal church. 
Let come a few more years, with the unchecked growth of 
such influences as have prevailed for twenty years past, and the 
work will be done. The bishop's prediction will come to pass, 
and Rome will have the churches. It is notorious, that senti- 
ments are boldly avowed, and usages practised, by vast numbers 
of the Episcopal clergy, without exciting any more than a 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 221 

passing remark, which, a few years ago, would have been met 
with indignant frowns, and the severest ecclesiastical censure. 
It is perfectly amazing to see with what celerity and force the 
Oxford leaven has diffused itself. It is one of the most signifi- 
cant tokens of these times, and we wait with the profoundest 
interest to know what the result shall be. 



THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

In all essential respects, the question concerning the apostol- 
ical succession has been disposed of already. If it has been 
made evident, that the apostles, as such, were not to be suc- 
ceeded, that their office was personal and temporary, in its very 
nature, and by design of Christ, then the fact of a succession 
must fall, of course, with the doctrine. 

Says our author, page 113, — "We think we have established, 
in our preceding discourses, upon the authority of scripture and 
the ancient fathers, that there were three orders of ministers in 
the church, distinguished by a gradation of rights and powers; 
that these were known immediately after the apostolic age, by 
their respective names of bishops, priests or presbyters, and 
deacons; and that the bishops alone succeeded to the apostolic 
office, being alone empowered, as were Timothy and Titus, to 
perpetuate the ministry and to govern the church. It follows, 
therefore, that all who claim to act as the ministers of Jesus 
Christ in his church, either as bishops, presbyters, or dea- 
cons, must have a verifiable commission from those who were 
empowered to bestow it; that is, must be episcopally ordained. 

The eiTor of this statement, so far as relates to the point in 
hand, lies in the assumption of what never has been, and never 
can be proved, but has been disproved a thousand times: that 
bishops are a distinct order in the ministry of the christian 
church, and that they have succeeded to the apostolic office. 



222 THE CHURCH, 

A false doctrine is assumed, and an inference of falsehood is 
derived from it. 

Having stated his doctrine as above, our author goes on 
to say: 

" There is no escaping from such a requisition ," (i. e. of pre- 
latical ordination,) " unless we deny the divine authority of the 
ministry altogether, and assume the position that Christ left the 
church without any authorized rulers, to be moulded and 
governed by the caprice of men." 

We can not see that such a consequence would be the result. 
It seems to us, and we think it will seem to any one who is 
capable of looking at more than one side of this subject, that 
all the conditions of a divine right in the christian ministry, are 
as well secured by our doctrine of a presbyterial succession 
from the apostles, regarding them as the first presbyters, as by 
the doctrine of our opponents. 

Does it follow, from our denying that the apostles ordained 
other apostles, that we must also deny that they ordained other 
ministers? And if they ordained other ministers to take their 
places, in the ordinary and permanent ministry of the church, 
with authority to ordain others in perpetual succession, did 
they not then provide an apostolical ministry for all ages, just 
as really, and a thousand times more effectually and certainly, 
than they would have done on the different supposition of pre- 
latists ? The alternative, which we are told is alone left to us, 
if we reject the episcopal theory, is a mere fancy of our author, 
betraying how little study or thought he has ever bestowed 
upon this subject. When, on a former occasion, puzzled with 
the ordination of Timothy by the presbytery, he deemed it 
important to recognize the fact, that the apostles were also 
presbyters, then that fact appeared to be one of the mere com- 
mon-places of his varied understanding; but now, with the 
turning up of another difficulty, the circumstances are changed, 
and it seems to have entirely passed from his recollection. 
Now, the apostles were apostles merely, and if they did not 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 223 

perpetuate their, apostleship they did not perpetuate any thing; 
so that the succession of the ministry which Christ appointed for 
his church, terminated with them, and the church was left with 
out any authorized rulers, to be moulded and governed by the 
caprice of men ! " 

Under the hallucination of this capital mistake, our author 
has constructed his entire argument, if argument it may be 
called, on this subject. 

If by " the apostolical succession," is meant a succession of 
the christian ministry from the apostles, or from those first 
ministers of our Lord who were also apostles, we believe in it 
with our whole heart. If, however, a succession of apostles is 
meant, we laugh at it as most absurd and impossible, and can 
only wonder at the infatuation of those who do not join with 
us in our merriment. 

No argument for an uninterrupted presbyterial succession, or 
what is equivalent to it, from the apostles, that is, from the men 
who were the first presbyters, and who received their presby- 
terial authority in the church from Christ himself, can be 
required of us. It might be necessary, if we were arguing with 
infidels, but can not be in an argument with Episcopalians; for, 
on only the same principles which they employ in demonstrating 
the fact of their succession, ours is a thousand fold more 
demonstrable than theirs. We recognize principles, however? 
applicable to this subject, growing out of our different views of 
the nature of ordination, by which the difficulties that must 
forever embarrass any succession, as a fact to be historically 
proved, extending through so long a period of time, are all fully 
relieved. Believing, as they do, in the actual, and not the sym- 
bolic impartation of grace by ordination; believing, that the 
bishop's hands do really communicate it, and that this grace, as 
a substantial holy ichor, first imparted by Christ to his apostles, 
has flowed down from them through a series of manual impo- 
sitions, in such a sense, that from one break in the channel 
it would be irrecoverably lost, unless restored by a miracle; 



224 THE CHURCH, 

believing so, their succession is certainly one of the most aston- 
ishing chimeras that the human mind ever conceived of as a 
reality. I do not wonder that every argumentation on its behalf 
should end as these argumentations invariably do, with an 
appeal from the reader's power of understanding to his power 
of believing, and that we should be required, on the assumption 
of the doctrine, to credit the fact as a prodigy referable to the 
almighty power and faithfulness of God. 

That I do not mis-state or over-state the Episcopal doctrine 
on this subject, the reader may be satisfied by a few extracts 
from their approved authors. 

Bishop Beveridge says, — see his works, vol. 2, Serm. on 
Christ's presence with his ministry, — " The apostolical line hath, 
through all ages, been preserved entire, there having been a 
constant succession of such bishops in it, as were truly and prop- 
erly successors to the apostles, by virtue of the imposition 
of hands, which being begun by the apostles, hath been con- 
tinued from one to another, ever since their time down to ours. 
By which means, the same spirit which was breathed by our 
Lord into his apostles, is, together with their office transmitted 
to their lawful successors, the pastors and governors of our 
church at this time ; and acts, moves, and assists, at the 
administration of the apostolic office, in our days, as much 

AS EVER." 

The mysterious sacramental virtue of ordination, as a means 
of communicating grace, and the miraculous presence of the 
Holy Ghost with the bishops of the Episcopal church now, as 
really as with the apostles of old, are here stated in terms too 
plain to be misunderstood. One can not forbear expressing a 
regret, that so little practical evidence has ever been afforded of 
the justice of these pretensions. 

Says Dr. Chandler, — See " Appeal on Behalf of the Church 
of England in America," — "If the succession be once lost, 
not all the men on earth, not all the angels in heaven, without 
an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 225 

The same view is impliedly expressed by Chopin, as quoted 
in appendix D, page 209. of Mr. Schuyler's book. 

By the Episcopal doctrine of apostolical succession, the whole 
grace of God to men is deposited with the bishops, so that if 
the line of bishops should fail, the church would be destroyed, 
and the entire work of human salvation would cease. See 
Chapin, as referred to above. They constitute the sole channel 
through which the divine mercy flows to the successive genera- 
tions of earth ; and that, not as mere agents, by whom the 
word of life is dispensed, for this would put them on a level 
with ordinary ministers ; but the very life is with them. They 
are dispensers r not especially of the message of grace, but of 
grace itself. Christ lives in the church in their persons, and 
acts solely with, and through them, and with and through those 
to whom they impart the heavenly gift. 

Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, himself a striking commentary on 
the doctrine, says, — see his "Address on Unity," — " None but 
the bishops can unite us to the Father, in the way of Christ's 
appointment ; and these bishops must be such as receive their 
commissions from the first commissioned apostles. Wherever 
such bishops are found dispensing the faith and sacraments of 
Christ, there is a true church; unsound, it may be, like the 
church of Rome, but still, a real and true church; as a sick or 
diseased man, though unsound, is still a real and true man." 

Dr. Hook, author of " The Three Reformations," is quoted by 
Smyth, in his " Lectures on the Apostolical Succession," page 
105, as saying, — " Unless Christ be spiritually present with the 
ministers of religion in their services, those services will be vain. 
But the only ministrations to which he has promised his pres- 
ence, are those of bishops, who are successors to the first 
commissioned apostles, and to the other clergy acting under 
their sanction, and by their authority" 

Dr. Dodwell is quoted in the same place, by Smyth, from 
the " New York Churchman," as using this language,—" None 
but the bishops can unite us to the Father and the Son. 
11* 



226 THE CHURCH, 

Whence it will follow, that whoever is disunited from the visible 
communion of the church on earth, and particularly from 
the visible communion of the bishops, must consequently be 
disunited from the whole visible catholic church on earth, and 
not only so, but from the invisible communion of the holy 
angels and saints in heaven, and, what is yet more, from Christ 
and God himself. It is one of the most dreadful aggravations 
of the condition of the damned, that they are banished from 
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. 
The same is their condition, also, who are disunited from Christ 
by being disunited from his visible representative." 

These are but specimens, selected pretty much at random, 
from a great variety of similar representations, that I have 
before me. They serve sufficiently to exhibit the doctrine. 

Can any man have doubts respecting the origin of this 
doctrine of apostolical succession? Who does not instantly 
recognize it as a part of that system of cunningly devised 
priest-craft and imposture, by which the hierarchy has ever 
sought to enslave the human mind, and to establish the iron 
yoke of its despotism on the necks of all people ? I do not 
charge our Episcopal brethren with any such designs; but I do 
charge them with seeking, conscientiously it may be, to per- 
petuate a doctrine begun in fraud, and used in all ages since, 
for the most oppressive and man -debasing purposes. Whence 
did the church of Rome derive her monstrous power to tyran- 
nize over the world, and to hold men's very souls in subjection 
to her will, but from this same dogma of the apostolical suc- 
cession ? The bishops alone can unite us to the Father ! To 
be disunited from the bishops, is to be disunited from God 
and Christ, and this is to be damned ! The way to God is 
by Christ, and the way to Christ is by the bishops, or by the 
other clergy acting under their sanction, and by their author- 
ity ! It is not by believing and obeying the truth, as it is re- 
vealed in the glorious gospel of the blessed God, that we are to 
escape the most dreadful aggravations of the condition 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. m 

of the damned; but it is by submitting to the bishop, or to 
his authorized representative, the priest ! This is the doctrine. 
God approaches us only through these agents. The divine 
fountain of life is utterly and forever inaccessible to us. The 
bishops and their subordinate ministers, the priests, must 
convey to us those living waters, or we can never drink them ! 
They are the medium of aU gracious communication with us 
poor sinners; the sole conduits through which the streams of 
salvation must flow to us, or never flow to us at all ! The 
bishops, in long lines of unbroken succession, each line begin- 
ning at Christy and receiving from him the true vital element, 
convey it down from hand to hand by an endless series of 
mystical manipulations, and we, to receive it, must go to them, or 
go without for ever ! They, at the farther extremities of their 
several lines, lay hold on God ; upon whom, if we would lay 
hold also, we must lay hold on them ! Where are we then ? 
Good Lord deliver us ! We are in the power of the bishops, 
sure enough, and there is nothing left for us but to bow or 
burn. Voluntary separation from the bishops is voluntary 
exclusion from all good ! The bishop's anathema is the curse 
of God! The bishop's sentence of excommunication damns 
the soul! 

The Episcopal doctrine of the apostolical succession amounts 
to this, and there is no help for it. It is the very kernel of the 
whole system of popish abominations. Can it be that such a 
doctrine is maintained in this enlightened and free country, in 
the nineteenth century, and by Protestants? Must it be argued 
against, to prevent it from spreading among men who have 
bibles I I can not think that, of the Episcopal laity, one in a 
hundred really believes it. Why do they bear with such folly \ 
Why do they lend their influence, even indirectly, to the sup- 
port of that, which, folly though it be, and now little else than 
a harmless theory of their clergy, may one day become a most 
powerful engine of spiritual oppression, under which their de- 
scendants, if not themselves, shall groan in a miserable and 



228 THE CHURCH, 

hopeless bondage? Such wretched, yet dangerous nonsense 
ought to meet with strenuous rebukers among Episcopalians 
themselves. Intelligent laymen should let their bishops and 
rectors know, that it is altogether too late for priests even to 
assert such pretensions, and that they will not be tolerated. I 
wonder at their forbearance. 



THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 

Mr. Schuyler's fifth lecture is devoted to a discussion of " the 
authority and expediency of forms of prayer for public wor- 
ship." He regards the subject as one of great importance, and 
thinks that Episcopalians ought " to settle the question, whether 
the church has any scriptural basis on which to build her time- 
honored usage in this respect." I heartily concur with him in 
this view. 

I said in the appendix to my sermon, page fifty, — " There is 
not a word of authority in the scriptures for the use of pre- 
composed forms of prayer. There is not the shadow of an 
evidence that the church, in the days of the apostles, used 
forms of prayer, or that a question was ever raised in regard 
to the propriety of using them." Our author calls this a 
"bold assertion," and manfully declares that he enters upon 
this discussion with " full knowledge of my having made it. 
I may be permitted to say, that if the assertion was hold, it was 
at least well considered. Of this I hope to be able to satisfy 
my readers. Passing by some rhetorical flourishes with which 
his lecture opens, we shall proceed at once to an examination 
of its more serious matter. 

He commences with quoting what he regards as authorita- 
tive examples from the Old Testament, in favor of liturgies. 
It should be remarked here, that my assertion was made with 
simple reference to the christian church, and that nothing more 
was intended than that there is no scriptural authority for the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 229 

use of precomposed forms of prayer now. I do not see, there- 
fore, what would be gained by hirn, should he prove in the 
clearest manner, that forms were prescribed for the Jewish wor- 
shipers. The Old Testament scriptures we truly regard as of 
divine authority, equally binding upon christians, so far as they 
inculcate truth and moral duty, with any other part of the 
sacred canon; but no one will pretend that the ordinances 
which were given to the Jews for the regulation of their public 
worship, impose the least degree of obligation upon us, or are 
to be regarded, in any sense, even as examples for our imita- 
tion. Still, I am not unwilling to allow to Mr. S. all the 
advantage which he can derive from this species of argument. 
He has utterly failed to prove, that the ancient Jewish church 
used a liturgy ; and if he had no other evidences than those 
which he has adduced, I can not but feel amazed that he should 
have ventured to make the attempt. 

The reader is requested to bear in mind, what is the real 
point in debate between us : whether there is, or is not, scrip- 
tural authority for the use of liturgies, precomposed forms 
of prayer, in the public worship of God in the church. 

For his first proof of the affirmative, our author reminds us 
that " Moses composed a sublime song of thanksgiving, which 
was sung responsively in praising God, when the Israelites 
celebrated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage." This is 
to show that the Jewish church worshiped God by a liturgy ! 
Does our author not know that we Presbyterians have sublime 
songs precomposed, and printed in books too, which we habit- 
ually sing in our churches to the praise of God? Is our 
worship, therefore, liturgical? Songs, which are to be sung by 
the united voices of a congregation, must of necessity be pre- 
composed; but the case is very different of prayers, which are 
to be offered up by a single voice, and joined in mentally and 
spiritually by other worshipers. 

We are told next, that " as the Israelites journeyed, whenever 
the ark moved forward or rested, there was a special prayer 



230 THE CHURCH, 

to be said." Now, the simple fact is, that we are informed in 
the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh verses of the tenth chapter 
of Numbers, what the prayer was, which, in one instance, 
Moses offered at the setting forward of the ark, and again, at 
the resting of it. Does any one know that these same prayers, 
without variation, were said on every similar occasion ? And 
if they were, what then? Does it follow that the Jews, 
in their public church service, used a liturgy? We shall be 
very far from admitting that the Jewish worship was liturgical, 
simply because on certain great and extraordinary occasions, a 
form of words was used. 

Again, we are told that " after a form, the priests of Israel 
were required to bless the people." This was undoubtedly so, 
but what does it prove ? Have we ever questioned the propri- 
ety of a form of words in pronouncing a benediction ? Is it 
not our own invariable practice to use a form ? We use, it is 
true, not always the same form. After apostolical precedent 
we allow ourselves liberty in this respect, yet a form we always 
employ. What then ? Are we also liturgists ? 

Our author cites the foregoing authorities hastily, as though 
he himself did not think much of them. Who can wonder ? 
" But in the book of Psalms," he continues with evidently-rising 
courage, " we have an inspired prayer-booh, and one which 
was composed expressly for public worship." Dear Mr. Schuy- 
ler ! was the book of Psalms used in the public worship of the 
Jews, as a prayer-booh, or as a psalm-book? Think hard 
now, and give us your deliberate opinion. Were the sublime 
effusions contained in this book said as prayers, or were they 
sung as songs ? What would you say, if you were testifying 
according to the best of your knowledge and belief, in a court 
of justice ? I can not but remind my friend again, that the 
course of his argument is making liturgists of us Presbyterians 
also : for these same psalms, expressed in English verse, not near 
so literally as we could desire, we also sing every sabbath day 
in our churches. Mr. S. says — " Hezekiah enjoined the use of 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. m 

these very forms in the service of the temple," and adds,- 
We are told, 2 Chron. xxix: 30-<Hezekiah the king, and 
the pnnces, commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the 
Lord, with the words of David and of Asaph the seer; and 
they sang praises with gladness, and bowed their heads and 
worshiped. So the service of the house of the Lord was set 
in order." 

What more proper thing, we reply, could they do ? If sing- 
ing was to be a part of the temple service, where could they 
have found words more appropriate for that purpose, than "the 
words of David and of Asaph the seer ? " Where could they 
have found sublimer poetry, or purer, and more devout, and 
soul-inspiring sentiment ? The people of God in all branches of 
the church, still regard tha psalms as pre-eminently suited for 
the purpose of devotion; and still God is praised, as nearly as 
can be in other tongues, all the world over, " in the words of 
David and of Asaph the seer." " Upon the erection of the 
second temple," our author goes on to say, " a similar service 
was prescribed." That is to say, the Jews still continued, by 
direction, to sing the psalms. Wonderful, indeed ! But what 
has all this to do with the question under discussion, in regard 
to precomposed forms of prayer? We want proof that the 
temple service of the Jews was liturgical, and our author gravely 
informs us that they had an authorized psalm-book ! 

The psalms were metrical compositions, set to musical notes, 
to be sung, with an instrumental accompaniment, by the people. 
We know that many of these psalms are really prayers, but this 
does not effect the question of the purpose for which they were 
composed, or of the manner in which they were actually em- 
ployed. They were written to be sung, because that which is 
to be sung by a concert of voices, must, of necessity be written ; 
and they were sung by the congregation, not said, as prayers, 
by the conductor of public worship. 

The last authority from the Old Testament, with which our 
author has favored us, is taken from Hosea xiv : 2, — " Take 



232 THE CHURCH, 

with you words , and turn unto the Lord. Say unto him, Take 
away all our iniquity, and receive us graciously," &c. This, 
Mr. S. calls " an express command to the people to come with 
words prepared when they would address the Most High." 
We are forcibly reminded here of the Shaking Quaker's proof 
text for dancing in public worship, and for his peculiar manner 
of performing that rite. What does the reader imagine it to 
be ? — " Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die ! " — We think 
our author not one whit behind the Shaker in his shrewd 
insight into scripture meanings. To whose mind but an Epis- 
copalian's searching for liturgical precedents, would this text ever 
have suggested the idea that he seems to have gathered from 
it? Who denies that prayer is to be offered to God in words? 
Who denies that when we are about to draw near to God in 
prayer, we ought to premeditate what we design to say, and to 
come with " words prepared ? " The very nature of prayer im- 
plies the necessity of this. To pray, is to ask God for things 
that we need, and that we desire to receive. How can we pray 
until we have first ascertained our wants, and formed in our 
minds the petitions that we desire to make i Now what was 
the real purport of the prophet's exhortation ? Uyging the rebel- 
lious people of Israel to return penitently to God, whom their 
sins had offended and provoked, he directs them to return with 
prayer, and very properly suggests to them various petitions 
and confessions, suitable in such a case as theirs to be made. 
This is the whole of it ; and yet our ingenious author finds in 
this text the syllabus of a complete discourse on the subject of 
liturgies. What was designed as a simple advice, or direction 
to the Israelites in their then existing circumstances, is made by 
him a general positive precept on the subject of prayer, and we 
are told to regard it as " an express command to the people to 
come with words prepared, when (i. e. whenever) they would 
address the Most High." "Take with you words." — By 
"words," he can understand nothing short of " words pre- 
pared] 1 that is, according to his own understanding of the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 233 

matter, written down. "Sag unto him," &,— This means, 
read from a book. Oh, excellent ! Thus we live and learn. 

We have now seen the whole of our author's argument from 
the Old Testament. He undertakes to prove from this source, 
that the ancient Jews, in their public and ordinary worship of 
God, prayed by prescribed forms, that is, that they had and 
used a liturgy — a fact by the way, which if it were ever so 
well established, would have no bearing on the real question in 
debate,— and what are his proofs? What does he show us to 
relieve our doubts on this point ? Why, that Moses composed 
a song to the praise of God, which, on stated occasions, the peo- 
ple sang; that he offered a prayer once when the ark moved, 
and another when it rested, the words of both which prayers 
are preserved; that the priests had a form of benediction which 
they were required to pronounce upon the people; that in the 
temple service, the singing was directed to be performed " in 
the worcls of David and of Asaph, the seer;" and that the 
prophet Hosea, on one occasion, exhorting the people to repent- 
ance, suggested to them the substance of a prayer and confession 
which would be suitable for them to offer ! 

Now, 1 ask, if our author does not seem to have been sadly 
pressed for the materials of a demonstration ? If this was all 
that he could find, he must have felt that there was something 
very like a scarcity in the land. Let no one blame him, how- 
ever, except for his attempt. He has done his best, and no one 
could do more. 

So far, at least, as the Old Testament is. concerned, my "bold 
assertion " may be repeated. There is not the shadow of an 
evidence there, that among the ancient Jews, a liturgy was ever 
known or heard of. 

The best example of a public prayer, offered in the presence 
of the congregation of Israel, and the one which, of all others, 
should be quoted, as furnishing testimony on the point now 
before us, is the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the 
temple, which we have at large in the eighth chapter of first 



234 THE CHURCH, 

Kings. Why did Mr. Schuyler fail to notice this prayer ? For 
the reason, undoubtedly, that he could make nothing of it, but 
confusion to his cause. He knows that it was not read from a 
book, nor read at all, but uttered as it was conceived in the 
heart of that pious king. If any one is not satisfied on this 
head, it is sufficient barely to notice the account that we have 
of it in the place where the prayer is found : — " And Solomon 
stood before the altar of the Lord, in the presence of all th e 
congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward 
heaven: and he said, Lord God of Israel, there is no God 
like thee," &c, &c. Again, at the end, we read, — " And it was 
so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this 
prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the 
altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees, with his hands 
spread up to heaven." The mere attitude of the king in this 
service, " with his hands spread up to heaven," shows in the 
clearest manner that he was not reading from a book, but 
simply pouring out the free desires of his own soul to God. If 
our author, in the agony of his fruitless search after liturgical 
precedents in the Old Testament, had not known that this was 
so, or if he could have furnished any plausible pretext for a 
different construction of the record, would he have passed by 
this prayer of Solomon with such profound silence ? Who will 
believe it ? 

" It will not be denied," so he proceeds, passing on now to 
another field of evidence, " that in the time of our Saviour the 
Jews used forms of prayer in their synagogues." Then follows 
a quotation from Hooker, which, it is presumed, if any one were 
disposed to deny it, would effectually deter him. He might 
have quoted Lightfoot, Hall, Prideaux, and Usher, with even- 
better effect; but as he seems fully to believe that his proposi- 
tion will not be denied, he doubtless thought that the name of 
Hooker would be sufficient. Great men, and even bishops, 
however, have sometimes been mistaken; and he must not be 
surprised, if after all, some one should be found to deny "that 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 235 

in the time of our Saviour the Jews used forms of prayer in 
their synagogues." Still, for the present, let it be admitted. 
We know that there were, in our Saviour's time, many observ- 
ances and practices among the Jews, founded solely upon the 
traditions of the elders, whereby the commandments of God 
were made of none effect. Our Saviour distinct]y told them 
so. Now it devolves upon our opponents in this discussion, to 
show that these liturgies were introduced by divine authority, 
and that they were not the corrupt devices of men. We have 
followed our author in his search through the Old Testament 
scriptures for prescription and precedent, and he finds neither 
one, nor the other. No trace of a divine warrant for precom- 
posed forms of prayer, or of usage to justify the presumption 
that such a warrant was ever afforded, is any where discover- 
able. If then, it can be proved, that liturgies were in use 
among the Jews in our Saviour's time, we say again, — and we 
hope our author will bear it in mind, if ever he sees fit to recur 
to this subject, — that it devolves upon him to show that they 
were not part and parcel of the corruptions, which it is well 
known had for two or three centuries been creeping into the 
Jewish church. Admitting the existence of these pretended 
liturgies in the time of Christ, what then ? Our author says, 
page 162, — "We are told by the evangelists, that our Saviour 
was in the habit of attending upon the worship of the syna- 
gogue. We can not believe that he sat there as an idle 
spectator, while the true Israel were thus worshiping the God 
of their fathers. Nor can we believe that he would have 
sanctioned by his presence, a mode of worship, in itself, unfit- 
ting the service of the sanctuary, or unauthorized by divine 
prescription. Here then, in the fact that he attended the syna- 
gogue, that he went there himself as a worshiper, and that he 
united in the service, we have the highest of all sanctions, even 
that of his own blessed example, to prescribed forms for 
public worship." 



236 THE CHURCH, 

This is certainly a very pious view of the subject, but it is 
nevertheless a very poor specimen of reasoning. Has not 
Mr. Schuyler himself, sometimes attended public worship in a 
Presbyterian meeting-house? Very likely he has not done so 
since his conversion to Episcopacy, but possibly he has. At 
least I may suppose a case. If he should do such a thing, 
does he imagine that by engaging reverently in the services, he 
would be fairly chargeable with sanctioning the use, in public 
worship, of extempore prayers ? Were I to attend his church, 
and, as devoutly as possible, follow him in the prayers which 
should be read, .could he infer from my so doing, that I approve 
of liturgies? 

But to the case before us. Does our author not believe that 
there were many things both in the manner and matter of the 
synagogue worship, in the time of our Saviour, which were 
really offensive to him, or which, at least, he would have 
wished to be different ? How, then, does his attendance on 
that worship, and his participation in it, prove that he sanc- 
tioned the use of written forms of prayer ? Our author must 
remember, that we do not charge upon a liturgical service, that 
it is positively sinful, but only that it is not of divine appoint- 
ment, and that it is inexpedient Of course, the Saviour would 
not have engaged with the Jewish worshipers in the practice 
of sin; but might he not have tolerated some things which he 
did not wholly approve ? Is it not certain, from his attend- 
ance on the Jewish worship, which, whatever may be said of 
the prayers, every one knows to have been infected with many 
novelties, through their traditions, that he actually did so ? 

But, now for the main question. Was the worship of the 
Jews, in our Lord's time, liturgical? Mr. Schuyler, after 
quoting from Hooker, to show that liturgies were then in 
use, says, page 161, — "Many of these liturgies are still 
extant, and we may have access to them in the very forms 
then in use." Will he pretend to say that this is a set- 
tled, absolute fact? I must remind him that many ancient 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 237 

documents which are now on all hands admitted to be spurious 
have been vouched for as authentic, by men as learned and 
every way worthy of confidence as "the learned and pious 
Hooker" himself, (whose learning and piety I do not at all 
question,) or any others that have sought to verify these pre- 
tended Jewish liturgies. Who has not heard of liturgies in 
the church, composed by St. Peter, and St. James, and St. 
Mark ? and that there are now extant, canons and constitutions 
asserted to have been drawn up by the whole college of the 
apostles? Even these have not wanted learned and pious 
defenders ; but what scholar now regards them as genuine, or 
does not smile at the credulity that ever trusted them for a 
moment ? Nothing could be more uncertain than the kind of 
evidence on which the credit of these ancient liturgies depends. 
If Mr. S. is satisfied with it, I am not. The sole authority for 
them is the Mishna. And what is this ? Bishop Home says — 
vol. ii, pages 295-296 — "The Mishna is a collection of vari- 
ous traditions of the Jews, and of expositions of scripture texts ; 
which, they pretend, were delivered to Moses during his abode 
on the mount, and transmitted from him, through Aaron, Ele- 
azar, and Joshua, to the prophets, and by those to the men of 
the great Sanhedrim, from whom they passed in succession to 
Simeon, (who took our Saviour in his arms,) Gamaliel, and 
ultimately to Eabbi Jehudah, surnamed Hakkadosh the Holy. 
By him this digest of oral law and traditions was completed, 
toward the close of the second century, after the labor of forty 
years." Prideaux — vol. ii, page ninety-three, and onward — 
gives a detailed account of this book, according to representa- 
tions of the Jewish Kabbis : " They tell us] 1 he says, page 
ninety-five, "that at the same time when God gave unto 
Moses the law on Mount Sinai, he gave unto him, also, the 
interpretation of it, commanding him to commit the former to 
writing, but to deliver the other only by word of mouth, to be 
preserved in the memories of men, and to be transmitted down 
by them, from generation to generation, by tradition only ; and 



238 THE CHURCH, 

from hence, the former is called the written, and the other the 
oral law." He then proceeds to describe the Jewish account of 
the manner in which this oral law was preserved, and the suc- 
cession of men through whose memories it was perpetuated. 
Moses gave it to Joshua, and he to the elders, and they to the 
prophets " till " — pages ninety-seven and ninety-eight — " it 
came to Jeremiah, who delivered it to Baruch, and Baruch to 
Ezra, by whom it was delivered to the men of the great syna- 
gogue, the last of whom was Simon the Just. Finally, it 
came into the hands of Kabbah Judah Hakkadosh, who wrote 
it into the book which they call the Mishna. But all this," 
adds this author, " is mere fiction, spun out of the fertile inven- 
tion of the Talmudists, without the least foundation either in 
scripture or in authentic history. * * * But the truth 
of the whole matter is this : after the death of Simon the Just, 
(B. C. 299,) there arose a sort of men whom they call the 
Tanaim, or the Mishnical doctors, that made it their business 
to study and descant upon those traditions which had been 
received and allowed by Ezra and the men of the great syna- 
gogue, and to draw inferences and consequences from them, all 
of which they ingrafted in the body of these ancient traditions, 
as if they had been as authentic as the other; which example 
being followed by those who succeeded them in this profession, 
they continually added their own imaginations to what they 
had received from those that went before them, whereby these 
traditions becoming as a snow-ball, the farther they rolled 
down, from one generation to another, the more they gathered, 
and the greater the bulk of them grew. And thus it went on 
till the middle of the second century after Christ, when Anto- 
nius Pius governed the Roman empire ; by which time they 
found it necessary to put all these traditions into writing; for 
they were then grown to so great a number, and enlarged to so 
huge a heap, as to exceed the possibility of being any longer 
preserved by the memory of men." He proceeds to say, that 
Rabbi Judah, at this time, undertook the work of compiling 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 239 

this crude and heterogeneous mass of matter, and finally pro- 
duced the book which is called the Mishna; "which book was 
forthwith received by the Jews with great veneration, through- 
out all their dispersions, and hath ever since been held in high 
esteem among them : for their opinion of it is, that all the 
particulars therein recorded were dictated by God himself 
to Moses," &c. &c. 

This, let it be observed, accounts sufficiently for the use of 
the Mishnical prayers, by Jews of the present day, without at 
all supposing, necessarily, that any such forms were actually 
employed in the synagogue worship at the time of Christ. 

On page 413, of Prideaux, vol. ii, there occurs another pas- 
sage worthy of notice. — " After this, (i. e. after the death of 
Simon the Just,) followed the Mishnical times, that is, the times 
of traditions. Hitherto, the scriptures were the only rule of 
faith and manners which God's people studied; but hence- 
forth, traditions began to be regarded, till at length they over- 
bore the word of God itself, as we find in our Saviour's time." 

Now, let it even be granted that the testimony of the Mishna 
proves sufficiently the existence and use of liturgies among the 
Jews, in the time of our Saviour, is it not a reasonable conclu- 
sion from the silence of the scriptures on this subject, that 
these liturgies were Mishnical inventions, and nothing more ? 
But let the history of this famous book be impartially con- 
sidered, and I ask if it can fairly be regarded as proving any 
thing ? Is it a reliable source of testimony on any subject 
whatever? Prideaux says, that the Mishna was composed 
about A. D. 150. Dr. Lightfoot says, about A. D. 190, in the 
latter end of the reign of Commodus; or, as some compute, in 
"the year of Christ, 220. Dr. Lardner fixes the date about the 
same as Dr. Lightfoot, at 190. Now, giving to the Mishna all 
possible credit to which, in the judgment of any rational mind, 
it can be regarded as having a title, the value of its testimony 
in regard to the point to be proved, is that of a mere oral 
tradition running through a space of about two hundred years, 



240 THE CHURCH, 

mixed up and confounded with a perfect infinitude of other 
traditions. I am not very solicitous to disprove the assump- 
tion that the Jews, in our Lord's time, used a liturgy in their 
public worship ; for if they did so, the argument is irresistible, 
that it was a corruption of their primitive mode ; and our 
Lord's attendance upon that liturgical worship proves nothing 
in its favor. Still, I claim, and the facts show, that there is no 
reliable evidence that they did so. Mr. Schuyler, in his vene- 
ration for antiquity, may set a high value on the Mishna, but 
save as an interesting literary curiosity, containing illustrations 
of ancient manners, and occasionally, perhaps, throwing some 
light upon a text of scripture, I do not value it a pin. As a 
book to be appealed to for the settlement of great questions of 
christian faith and practice, it is utterly contemptible. 

The reliability of the Mishna is as impeachable for the lack 
of internal as of external evidence. There is really nothing 
appertaining to it, either in its history, or in the character of 
its records, to render it a credible witness of any disputed fact ; 
and yet, as I have said already, it contains all the evidence there 
is, that the Jewish worship in the time of our Saviour was 
liturgical ; all the evidence there is, of a fact which Mr. Schuy- 
ler assumes without a word of explanation, and passes lightly 
over, as though it were some notorious thing of yesterday, with 
saying that " it will be denied." It may answer in his own 
pulpit, and before his own people, to dispose of things, in this 
way, but it will not do for him to print his sermons. We do 
deny that the Jewish worship in the time of our Saviour was 
liturgical. We deny it on the simple ground that there is no 
sort of reliable evidence that it was so. 

Proceeding with his argument, our author says, page 162- 
" But we have precept as well as example." His example, be 
it remembered, is in the fact that our Lord was in the habit of 
attending the synagogue worship of the Jews, which on all 
accounts was not an example, because, first, there is no evidence 
that that worship was liturgical ; and because, secondly, if it 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. m 

was, our Lord's attendance upon it did not at all imply that he 
approved of its liturgical character. Now for the precept. 
" We are told by St. Luke, that as our Saviour was praying,' 
when he had ceased, one of the disciples said unto him, < Lord, 
teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.' 'And he 
said unto them, when ye pray, say Our Father which art in 
heaven,'" <fcc. "Now in these words," says our author, "we 
think we have the plainest and fullest authority for a form of 
prayer." I am infinitely amused with the reasoning that fol- 
lows, not. to mention the grammar. — "In the first place, it 
proves that John the Baptist had given his disciples a form, 
and this farther proves that such had been the usage of the 
Jewish church." How so ? I can not see it at all. The words 
which have just been quoted, prove that John the Baptist had 
taught his disciples to pray, but how do they prove that he 
had given them a form, in our author's sense of that word ? 
And how does the fact that John the Baptist had taught his 
disciples to pray, prove that forms of prayer had been used in 
the Jewish church ? I suspect my brother has in some way 
got possession of Peter Schlemihl's seven league boots. How 
else he could leap through such immense distances to his con- 
clusions, I am utterly unable to conceive. He goes on to say : 

" Being the herald," that is-, John the Baptist, " being the 
herald of a new dispensation, and preaching repentance, warn- 
ing and exhorting the people to prepare for the approach of 
their deliverer, it was necessary that they (that is, I suppose, 
John the Baptist's disciples,) should have forms of devotion 
adapted to their peculiar errand." 

It was necessary that John's disciples should know how to 
pray, undoubtedly ; but how was it necessary that they should 
have forms of devotion ? Those boots ! I verily believe Mr. 
Schuyler thinks that John gave his disciples a liturgy. He 
proceeds — 

" But had John been in the habit of trusting to the inspira- 
tion of the moment, and to have invited his disciples to join 
12 



242 THE CHURCH, 

with him in offering their extempore effusions, we should never 
have heard of his having taught them to pray. The teach- 
ing necessarily implies the providing them with a new form, 
as our Saviour clearly understood the apostles to mean. They 
wished a new form, suited to their circumstances, as John had 
provided one, suited to that of himself and his disciples." 

It is plain that Mr. Schuyler has no idea of teaching on the 
subject of prayer, which does not consist in the communication 
of a form of tuords. Is that, I would ask, the beginning and 
the end of the instructions on this subject, which he feels it his 
duty to give to his parishioners ? Has he nothing to say in 
regard to the proper subjects of prayer, or the spirit with which 
it is to be offered, or other similar matters, commonly regarded 
as important? His task then is a very easy one. It is all done 
up to his hands. When one of his people comes to him, ask- 
ing to be taught to pray, he has nothing in the world to do but 
just turn down the leaves of the book at the right places, and 
tell him, There sir, sag that, and that, and that His work is 
finished when he has provided his inquirer with the proper 
forms. It seems to me that my friend's mind must be mysti- 
fied by recollections of his early discipline in the nursery — 
early, yet I am inclined to think recent — where he was proba- 
bly taught to pray by being required to sag after his mamma, 
" Our Father," and " Now I lay me." 

Did our Saviour intend this prayer, which he gave to his 
disciples, as a form, in our author's sense of that word ? He 
says, page 164 — 

" That he did not give it merelg as a model after which to 
form their prayers, is evident from the mode of expression, — 
i When ye pray, sag' Here it is clear that the use of the verg 
words is enjoined upon them." 

Now I reply, it is perfectly evident that the use of the verg 
words is not enjoined upon them, but this prayer was intended 
to serve merelg as a model after which their prayers should be 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 2 43 

formed, and that not a perfect one, if all future time is 
considered. Our reasons 'are the following : 

First. The mode of expression, " when ye pray, say," does 
not convey the idea that the very words were to be used, but 
is clearly an ellipsis, like that in Matt, x : 7, where our Lord, 
sending forth the twelve as preachers, says,— "As ye go, preach, 
saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand." No one, I believe, 
supposes that this was a form of preaching, which they were 
to follow in the very words. Our Saviour simply indicated to 
them what the general tenor and substance of their preaching 
must be. So, most manifestly, we are to understand him in the 
instance we are considering. 

Second. The same prayer, given on another occasion, as re- 
corded by Matthew, was introduced by Christ in terms which 
directly express our idea concerning it. — "After this manner, 
therefore, pray ye." Mr. Schuyler says, that it was " designed 
both as a form and as a model" and that as given in Luke it 
is the former, in Matthew the latter. That is to say, at one 
time our Lord meant that the prayer which he taught his dis- 
ciples, should be regarded as a form, to be used in the very 
words in which he gave it, and at another time he meant that 
it should not be a form at all, but simply a general pattern or 
outline of prayer. In other words, he had no settled purpose 
in regard to it ! 

Is our author not capable of perceiving that the Lord's 
prayer must be either a model or a form? That we may use 
it as a form, no one denies, for if it is a good model, it must be 
a good form, when we choose to employ it as such. But we 
are looking now at the use of it as authoritative and obligatory 
in one character or the other. If it is imposed by Christ's 
command as a form, then it can not be a model, but must be 
a form always, at all times and in all places. To say that the 
same authority has given it to us as a mere model also, is to 
say that the command, imposing it on us as a form, is revoked, 
or nullified. 



244 THE CHURCH, 

Now in Matthew, chapter sixth, we have this prayer, given 
by Christ, according to our author's Awn admission as a simple 
model. We say, therefore, so far as an obligatory use of it is 
concerned, it is always a model and nothing else. 

Third. The Lord's prayer, in the different places in which it 
occurs, is expressed in different words. If it had been intended 
as a form, we maintain that it would have been expressed 
always in the same identical terms. Calvin, in commenting on 
this subject, says, — " The Son of God did not determine the 
exact words that were to be used, so that from that form which 
he dictated, it would be unlawful to depart; but he rather 
wished to direct and regulate our desires, that they should not 
wander beyond these boundaries; whence we infer that the 
rule of praying rightly, which he has given to us, consists not 
in words, but in things. 

Fourth. We never find the Lord's prayer used as a form by 
any of the apostles. We have the record of prayers offered 
by them, but never this prayer, or any portion of it. This 
is very singular. How will Mr. S. account for it ? Grotius 
says, — " Christ did not command the words to be recited, but 
that we should take the materials of our prayers thence," and 
" that though it may be used with great profit as a form, yet we 
do not read that ever the apostles used it so." Maldonatus, in 
commenting on this prayer, as found in Matthew, says, — " Not 
necessarily with these words are we to pray, but with this or 
similar meaning; for we never read that the apostles were 
in the habit of praying in these exact words." And Rev. 
Thomas Scott, in his commentary on the same place, thus 
speaks, — " It may often be proper to use the very words, but 
it is not always necessary, for we do not find that the apostles 
thus used it ; but we ought always to pray after the manner of 
it." Now, I suppose, the apostles must have known just in 
what sense, and for what purpose this prayer was given to 
them, and that we may take their usage as tolerably decisive 
authority in regard to it. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 245 

Fifth. We say, that as a form of prayer, designed for all 
time, the Lord's prayer is defective,— and that, in an essential 
point. It might do for Unitarians, but not for us. We believe 
that since the death and glorification of Christ, no prayer is 
complete or can be acceptable, which is not offered in his name. 
We must come to God by, and in the name of our high priest. 
Now, the utter absence of any mention of Christ, or allusion 
to his person or work in the prayer under consideration, we 
maintain, is perfectly conclusive against the idea of its having 
been intended as a form for christians. 

Sixth. There are innumerable special benefits which every 
soul needs to receive from God, and that daily, which are not 
named in this prayer. This, however, I do not deem impor- 
tant. I think I have furnished argument enough on this point. 
If Episcopalians believe that the Saviour meant to have his 
very words in Luke used, by christians, as a form, I would 
like to know why they vary from it in their own prayer-book ? 
I have had the curiosity to look into their book of common 
prayer, and not an instance do I find, where the words, either 
of Matthew or of Luke, are precisely followed. The words 
of Luke, which it is pretended were especially given as a 
form, are hardly followed at all. How is this, Mr. Schuyler? 
How dare you to deviate ? 

Suppose we should grant that the Lord's prayer was intended 
as a form, to be used as such, by christians in all ages of the 
world ? What then ? Would our author have the proof that 
he is seeking after ? Would it follow that the New Testament 
enjoins or countenances a complete liturgical service for the 
worship of God in the church ? 

There is a gem, in the way of style and argument, on page 
166, thrown in, in the form of a note, over the signature of 
W. S. In style it is ornamental, — in argument, it is what is 
sometimes called a clincher. Its piquancy and pertinency are 
truly remarkable. I quote it here as an act of justice to the 
amiable author. 



246 THE CHURCH, 

"If it had been the desire of our Saviour" — so W. S. 
writes, " to have recommended to his disciples, and through 
them to us, that they should conduct public worship by an 
extemporaneous method, what may we expect would have been 
his reply to those who asked him that he should teach them 
to pray ? May we not conclude that he would have met their 
request with some such response as the following : ' Go your 
way, and make your own prayers ; use such prayers as shall 
come into your minds when required. Are ye spiritual, and 
yet desire to be taught the method of prayer? Can you 
expect from me a form of prayer? Rather rely upon your 
gifts, and pray extemporaneously. 

" But very different.was the instruction he gave them ; for 
he furnished them at once with both a form and a model. He 
recited a prayer which they were to use. They used it, and 
the church has used it in every age. It has ( been ever since, 
and will always be a form and a model, and is a standing 
monument of a precomposed method of worship." 

So far as Mr. Schuyler is concerned, I think I may say that 
he gains no assistance in his argument from the Lord's prayer. 
What next ? Oh, read, and admire ! — page 166, — " That the 
apostles worshiped after a form, is evident from the fact that 
Christ prescribed one for them; ( ! ) and this fact furnishes us 
with strong presumptive j>roof, that when they came to form 
and regulate the services of the christian church, they would be 
guided in this respect by the will of their master, thus clearly 
expressed." Excellent! how the tide of my brother's argu- 
ment bears him on ! He certainly has the most astonishing 
facility in proving things, that ever it has been my lot to meet 
with. He continues: 

" Wherever they (i. e. the apostles,) went, they sought the 
Jews, and taught them in their synagogues; hence, in their 
early ministry, the worship which preceded their preaching 
was that of the Jewish church, which we have shown to have 
been after a prescribed form : and we can not therefore doubt, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 247 

but when they came to set in order the things that were want- 
ing in the church, the putting forth of a liturgy would be 
among their first duties ; and that it was so, is evident from 
the fact that we have no record of extempore prayer in church 
worship, in any part of Christendom, from the apostle's days to 
the time of the reformation" The argument here, derived 
from the fact that the apostles took part in the synagogue wor- 
ship of the Jews, and preached in the synagogues, is precisely 
like that which has been already answered, derived from the 
similar practice of our Lord. If a liturgical service was used 
in the synagogues, the practice of the apostles does not show 
that they approved of it. They preached the gospel wherever 
they could find hearers, whether in the v synagogue, or in the 
street, or in the market place, and they did not make difficulties 
of things which they could not help. Does Mr. Schuyler 
think, that if he were to invite me to preach in his church, in 
connection with his reading of the prayers, I would not do it ? 
I certainly would not refuse to engage in such an act of good 
christian fellowship ; and am very far from thinking that I 
should thereby compromise my principles on the subject of 
liturgies. — Very possibly I should preach him a sermon on the 
superior advantages of free prayer. But we have seen that 
there is no evidence that the Jewish synagogue worship at the 
time referred to, was liturgical. Mr. Schuyler says, that he 
has " shown it to have been after a prescribed form ; " but 
where, or when, or how ? I remember he has said that no 
one will deny that it was so; but is this showing that it waa 
so? He has neither shown it, nor attempted to show it. From 
this utterly unfounded assumption in regard to the apostles, he 
infers, "that when they came to put in order the things that 
were wanting in the church, the putting forth of a liturgy 
would be among their first duties." This is mere babyism. 
The apostles put forth a liturgy! Where is it? Does Mr. 
Schuyler suppose, that if the apostles had given the church a 
liturgy, it would not have been preserved ? Does he suppose, 



248 THE CHURCH, 

that so far from not being preserved, there would not be even 
any trace or record of it ? If the apostles gave the church a 
liturgy, it was inspired. Why was it not enrolled with the 
sacred canon, and preserved by the same watchful care of 
Divine Providence which has kept the other scriptures ? My 
brother imposes on his own credulity. No such liturgy, as he 
speaks of, was ever in existence. It is simply absurd to claim 
the contrary. That the apostles, among their first acts, gave 
the church a liturgy, we are told, "is evident, from the fact 
that we have no record of extempore prayer in church worship 
in any part of Christendom, from their days to the time of the 
reformation." Have we not? Is Mr. Schuyler ignorant, or 
does he mean to deceive and impose upon his readers ? We 
shall see shortly what the fact on this subject is. We shall 
see indeed, whether we have any record of precomposed forms, 
until long after the days of the apostles, when they came in 
with other corruptions of the pure and primitive simplicity of 
christian worship. 

My brother's scriptural argument is ended, and if he himself 
has not fully vindicated my a bold assertion," then I know not 
what vindication could be desired. I said the scriptures con- 
tained no authority for the use of precomposed forms of prayer. 
Has he shown the contrary ? Has not his utter failure to refute 
my assertion, proved most conclusively that it is true? I said* 
there is not a shadow of evidence in the scriptures that the 
churches in the days of the apostles used forms of prayer, or 
that a question was ever raised in regard to the propriety of 
using them. Has he succeeded in producing the shadow of an 
evidence ? 

Since Mr. S. has been unable to find any authority for forms, 
let us see how the matter stands in regard to free prayer; and 
I say truly, the scriptures contain all kinds of testimony against 
forms, and in favor of free prayer. 

First. They teach by their silence. Free prayer is natural; 
forms are artificial. If it was the divine intention, therefore, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 249- 

that the former and not the latter should be used, nothing was 
necessary beyond the mere injunction of the duty of prayer. 
If, however, it was the divine intention that the latter and not 
the former should be used, it was necessary, besides the injunc- 
tion of prayer, that there should be a special injunction of the 
use of forms. For example: if I, as a parent, am willing to 
attend to the merely verbal requests of my child, it is needless 
for me to say any thing to him on the subject; for, as that is 
the natural manner of a child's preferring his requests to a 
father, he will adopt it of course. But if I wish him to prefer 
his requests in writing, I must tell him so distinctly; this is 
artificial, and a positive injunction is indispensable. Now the 
fact that in the scriptures we are simply enjoined to pray, to 
make our requests known unto God, to call upon his name, 
while not a word is said about writing our prayers down and 
reading them, is proof, of the most conclusive kind, that it was 
intended they should be the free expressions of our desires, and 
not read from precomposed forms. 

The scriptures teach by their silence, in another way. There 
is no mention in a single place of prayers being read, or of the 
use of a book. We have innumerable instances of prayer, but 
never one of a read prayer, or of a prayer repeated memoriter. 
They record the instructions of our Lord, but never a word that 
he uttered on the subject of a liturgy. They record the acts 
of the apostles in regulating the church and setting in order the 
things that remained after Christ's ascension, but never once 
breathe a syllable on the subject of their composing a book of 
prayer. They tell us of the apostles' preaching in the syna- 
gogues, and of their preaching in the market-places, and of their 
preaching in the streets, but never hint of their reading the ser- 
vice. Episcopalians think, that in the public worship of God 
the reading of the church service is the great thing. With 
them, this is primary, the preaching is secondary. How can 
they explain this profound silence of the scriptures respecting 
the prayer book? respecting the great thing? Why have we 
12* 



250 THE CHURCH, 

in no place some such record as the following : " Now when the 
prayers had been read by Barnabas, Paul stood up and preached 
unto the people, saying," &c? Mr. Schuyler tells us, page 167, 
'< Wherever they, i. e. the apostles, went, they sought the Jews, 
and taught them in their synagogues; hence, in their early 
ministry, the worship which preceded their preaching, was that 
of the Jewish church," which he pretends was liturgical, i e. 
consisted of a precomposed service of prayer. Compare this 
statement with a simple record — Acts xiii : 14-1 6, — " But 
when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in 
Pisidia, and went into the synagogue, on the sabbath day, and 
sat down, and after the reading of the law and the prophets, 
the rulers of the synagogue, sent unto them saying, Ye men 
and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, 
say on. Then Paul stood up," &c. Where is Mr. Schuyler's 
service of prayer ? " The law and the prophets" he knows 
were the scriptures of the Old Testament, simply. Why is the 
reading of these so distinctly mentioned, and no mention made 
of the other ? Look at every similar record, and over each one, 
ask, where was the prayer book ? Echo will answer, " Where 
was the prayer-book ? " Still, my brother will have it, that in 
every such instance, the preaching of the apostles was preceded 
by a liturgical service of prayer ! 

Second. The scriptures convey instruction on this point by 
their exhortations, and their preceptive teaching on the general 
subject of prayer. Eph. vi: 18, — "Praying always with all 
prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto 
with all perseverance and supplication for all saints." — I will 
only ask the candid reader whether this holes as though Paul 
expected a book to be used? Again; turn to Rom. xv: 30 
31, — "Now I beseech you brethren — that ye strive together 
with me in your prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered 
from them that do not believe in Judea ; and that my service 
which I have for Jerusalem, (he was the bearer of the contri- 
butions of foreign christians to the poor saints at Jerusalem,) 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 251 

may be accepted of the saints." Does this seem to intimate 
that they were restricted to the forms of a book, or, that they 
had the largest liberty to introduce into their prayers all sub- 
jects whatsoever, that might seem to be proper and expedient ? 
Look now at 1 Cor. xiv: 13, and onward. I call attention 
particularly to this passage. The apostle is speaking expressly 
of praying in the church, be it observed. He says, " Wherefore 
let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he 
may interpret." That is, according to Macknight, " so as some 
one may interpret." He adds, " Else when thou shalt bless 
with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the 
unlearned, say amen at thy giving of thanks ? seeing he under- 
standeth not what thou sayest, for thou verily givest thanks 
well, but the other is not edified." Now, I ask, how could 
there be prayer in the church in an unknown tongue, if the 
church was tied up to certain specified forms ; if there was a 
prayer book ? " If Mr. S. should reply, that they might have 
recited the authorized prayers in an unknown tongue, then I ask 
again, where was the need of an interpreter ? If each man had 
the prayers before him, written down in a language which he 
perfectly understood, could he not join in them by simply look- 
ing over in his book? Could he not know, without having 
them interpreted, when to say amen, and what he was saying 
amen to ? I challenge any one to explain this passage on any 
other assumption than that, in the early and apostolic church 
the prayers were free, uttered as they were conceived in the 
heart of the person offering them % 

In first Timothy, ii: 1, 2, Paul says- "I exhort, therefore, 
first of all, that prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, 
be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are m 
authority," &c. Why such an exhortation, if the prayers to 
be said in the church were all put down already, in set forms 
and order ? The exhortation would appear very proper on the 
supposition that the prayers were free, but entirely superfluous 



252 THE CHURCH, 

on the supposition that they were all prescribed and arranged 
in a liturgy. 

I might quote such texts as these indefinitely. One or two 
more, however, shall suffice. Take such a passage as that in 
Phil, iv : 6, — " Be careful for nothing, but in every thing, by 
prayer and supplication, let your requests be made known unto 
God." Was there ever seen on earth a prayer-book, in the use 
of which this injunction might be followed ? Is it possible, 
except by free prayer, to obey either the letter or the spirit 
of the apostle's exhortation ? To show that the language of 
the Old Testament is coincident with that of the new, let the 
exhortation of David, in the sixty-second psalm, be considered — 
" Trust in him (God) at all times, ye people ; pour out your 
heart before him." Now, what idea does any one get of this 
pouring out of the heart before God ? I think it is of some- 
thing widely different from reading prayers out of a book. So 
also it may be said of the prophet's exhortation, Isaiah lv : 6, — 
" Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; call ye upon him 
while he is near." Only to think of a sinner, agonized and 
trembling under a sense of his exposure to divine wrath, and 
of the awful danger of having the last moment of mercy slip 
from him unimproved, reading his prayer out of a book! 
thumbing over the leaves of a prayer book to find a petition 
suitable to his case, while his heart is bursting to utter in the 
ear of heaven its loud and earnest cry for deliverance ! Does 
any one suppose that the prophet had such a thing in his mind 
as this ? I affirm that the whole current style of the hortatory 
and preceptive teaching of the bible, on the subject of prayer, 
implies that prayer is to be free, and is directly adverse to the 
notion of prescribed forms and liturgies. And now, 

Third.* For the scripture teaching by examples. The prayer 
of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, the best instance 
of public prayer, of prayer in the presence of a congregation, 
recorded in the Old Testament^ we have considered. Ex- 
amples from the New Testament are especially required, and 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 253 

there are enough of them. First, look at the record in Acts 
i : 13, 14. — " And when they were come in, they went up into 
an upper room, where abode Peter, and James, and John, and 
Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, 
James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the 
brother of James. These all continued with one accord in 
prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mo- 
ther of Jesus, and with his brethren." Here is a fair example 
of social prayer. Indeed, it was the church that was gathered 
together in this upper chamber. Does Mr. Schuyler believe 
that they used, on this occasion, precomposed forms ? Has he 
even a suspicion that they did so ? If he does believe or 
suspect it, will he venture an opinion as to where the written 
forms suited to the unprecedented exigency of that time were 
found ? Does the simple statement of the narrative look as 
though they prayed from a book ? Would it naturally suggest 
such an idea to any sane mind ? " These all continued," not 
in the reading of prayers, but " in prayer and supplication," 
in pouring out, undoubtedly, their hearts before God. In the 
same chapter, read the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth verses. — 
" And they prayed and said, Thou Lord which knowest the 
hearts of all men," <fcc. The occasion was that of choosing 
Matthias by lot, to fill the place of Judas. This prayer was 
offered in an assembly of the church, on a great and solemn 
occasion. Was it part of a liturgy then existing ? If so, by 
whom was that liturgy composed ? It will not be pretended 
that the apostles, at so early a period, had composed one, nor 
that such a prayer could have been found in any liturgy 
in use among the Jews. Whence, then, was it obtained? 
Now, let any one read the prayer; short, all contained in two 
little verses ; simple, just stating their request that God would 
show by the lots about to be cast, whether he had chosen Mat- 
thias or Barsabas, and let him say, if the supposition is unrea- 
sonable, that it was conceived and uttered at the moment. Can 
any one doubt that this was the real fact I Again. Take the 



254 THE CHURCH, 

prayer recorded in Acts iv: 24-30. Let the circumstances be 
considered in which this prayer was uttered. The church was 
in sore affliction. Persecution was beginning to rage. Peter 
and John had just been imprisoned and cruelly treated, for 
preaching in the name of Jesus, and were now only set at 
liberty under strict charge to preach no more. Dangers were 
pressing upon them on every hand, and nothing, to human 
eyes, appeared more probable, than that the new faith was 
about to be crushed by the mighty power of its adversaries. 
When Peter and John were let go, we are told, they went to 
their own company, L e. to the church, whom they found 
assembled, doubtless praying already for their imprisoned 
brethren, and considering of the state of their affairs ; " and 
they reported all that the chief priests and elders had said 
unto them. And when they heard that, they lifted up their 
voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, 
which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in 
them is ; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, 
Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain 
things ? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were 
gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast 
anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and 
people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever 
thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And 
now Lord, behold their threatenings ; and grant unto thy ser- 
vants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by 
stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that signs and won- 
ders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus." 
Now let any person attentively consider this prayer, so season- 
able in its appeals, so evidently framed to meet the very wants 
and exigencies of the time, so full of allusions to events actually 
transpiring, and say if he will, that it was part of an established 
liturgy — that it was read from a book. Let it not be forgotten 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 2 55 

that this is an example of public prayer, of prayer in an assem- 
bly of christians, in the church. 

Once more. Acts xii : 5,- " And Peter was kept in prison, 
but prayer was made without ceasing, of the church unto God 
for him." Was this done, does any one suppose, by a precom- 
posed form ? Was there a liturgy at that time, which contained 
a form of prayer suitable for such a crisis? The Episcopal 
prayer-book may contain a petition that God will show his 
" pity upon all prisoners and captives," but where has it prayers 
that would have served the purpose of the church when they 
were met to beseech God on behalf of Peter, fallen into the 
hands of his enemies ? If there is no liturgy now that is 
sufficiently copious to meet such a case, can it be supposed that 
there was one at that early day ? It is idle to debate. The 
church, on that occasion, had assembled to pour out their hearts 
before God, to plead on their brother's behalf in such words as 
the spirit of God should dictate to their minds. 

More examples are not wanting, but these will suffice. 
And now, although I am swelling this article beyond all 
expectation, I must take the trouble, seeing that Mr. Schuyler 
has said, " We have no record of extempore prayer in church 
worship, in any part of Christendom, from the apostles' days 
to the time of the reformation," to adduce some testimony on 
this point. 

I might assert that what he says is just opposite the truth, 
and I suppose my assertion would weigh as much as his. 
But I am not content with barely balancing his assertion, — I 
wish to prove that it is not true. We have seen already that 
there is ample record of extempore prayers in the very time of 
the apostles. Now for the times after the apostles. 

The truth on this subject is very briefly and clearly stated 
by the late Dr. Ebenezer Porter, President of the Andover 
Theological Seminary. In his Lectures on Homiletics, page 
292, he says, — "When, and how, then, did liturgies come 
into use ? I answer promptly, nothing of the kind, that is 



256 THE CHURCH, 

genuine, can be fixed upon, for the first three hundred years 
after Christ. When the Arian and Pelagian doctrines began 
seriously to disturb the church, various forms of expression, 
occasioned by public controversy, gradually insinuated them- 
selves into the language of prayer ; and it was deemed neces- 
sary by the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364 or 365, to require 
by ecclesiastical regulations, that ministers, instead of using the 
liberty before enjoyed, should always keep to one form of 
prayer, i. e. should not pray ' pro arbitrio, sed semper easdem 
preces.' This form, however, each minister might compose for 
himself provided that * before using it he should consult with 
learned and experienced brethren.' This regulation was ex- 
plained, as already in existence, by the council of Carthage, 
A. D. 397. About twenty years later, that is, A. D. 416, the 
council of Milan ordained that none should use set forms of 
prayer, except such as were approved in a synod. The result 
of my inquiries is, that no forms of prayer were prescribed by 
public authority till the fifth century. Before this, forms were 
used at the option of individual ministers." 

Until A. D. 364, then, every minister prayed "pro arbi- 
trio" that is, according to his own judgment, or the dictates 
of his own mind. Prayer was free. Subsequently, until the 
year 416, each minister was required to write his prayers out, 
and having had them approved by " learned and experienced 
brethren," to use " semper easdem preces " — always the same 
prayers. After A. D. 416, the ministers ceased to make their 
own prayers, and forms were prescribed by the synod. Was 
Mr. Schuyler utterly ignorant of these simple facts of history ? 

Authorities for free and extempore prayer in the primitive 
church are not wanting. I shall cite a few of the many that 
I have before me. Justin Martyr, in the second century, 
describing the manner of offering up prayer in the church, in 
his time, says — Apol. ii, in fine. p. 162 — "He, I e. the presi- 
dent, offers prayers and thanksgivings according as he is able, 1 ' 
i. e. according to the ability that he possesses. Such is a fair, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 257. 

rendering of the Greek. Some advocates of liturgies have 
pretended that this expression, "as he is able" means according 
to the fervency of his desires; that it has respect to the spirit, 
rather than to the substance and words of his prayers. But 
this is a bare subterfuge, and a very poor one. No one would 
think of saying that my brother Schuyler " oilers prayers and 
thanksgivings " in his church every sabbath day, according as 
he is able, or according to the ability he possesses. No ; that 
is the charge against us Presbyterian ministers; that we are 
left, each of us, to pray according to our ability, and that many 
of us, lacking the ability, make shocking work of it; while 
Episcopal rectors, having all such a beautiful liturgy which they 
are required to use, are enabled, though of feeble capacity, to 
make their services always edifying and pleasing. To test the 
meaning of Justin in this place, we may refer to another 
instance in his writings, where the same expression in his own 
Greek occurs, as that upon which we are now debating. He 
says — Apol. ii, in fine. p. 157 — "Having, therefore, exhorted 
you as we are able, we shall be henceforth blameless if you 
do not believe." What the expiession, "as we are able," 
means here, no one can be at a loss to tell. The testimony, 
therefore, of this father is, that in his time, the prayers offered 
in the church were extempore. 

My next authority is Hernias, who wrote some forty years 
earlier than Justin. I quote from the Pastor, lib. 2, —"When 
a man who, has the spirit of God, comes into the church of 
just men, who have the faith of God, and prayer is made to 
God, then the holy messenger for i\\^ divinity fills him with 
the Holy Ghost, and he speaks in the congregation as God 
would have him." That is, he prays as God would have him, 
for it is of prayer that Hennas is speaking. Does not this 
mean, he prays as he is prompted at the time by the Holy 
Ghost? Can it mean any thing else ? Thus the testimony of 
Justin is confirmed. 



258 THE CHURCH, 

Tertullian, A. D. 200, uses the following language, — Apol. 
c. 30. He also is describing the manner of christian worship. 
— " Looking up to heaven, they spread abroad their hands, 
because innocent^ with their heads uncovered, because not 
ashamed, and without a monitor, because they prayed from the 
heart." This passage presents the most unequivocal evidence, 
that in Tertullian' s time, prayer in the public worship of God 
was extempore, and not by written forms. I have a similar 
testimony from Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished A. D. 
194. The quotation is made by Dr. Porter in his Lectures on 
Homiletics. This father says, — " We pray with the head lifted 
up, and the hands stretched out." In addition to Tertullian's 
testimony that they prayed without a monitor, i. e. without a 
book or any thing written down, because they prayed from the 
heart, — the testimony of both these fathers, that they per- 
formed this service with their heads elevated, and their hands 
outstretched, like Solomon's at the dedication of the temple, 
is absolutely fatal to the idea that they used a book. If they 
had used a book, both hands and eyes would have had employ- 
ment altogether incompatible with such an attitude. 

Tertullian says again, in his book on prayer, ch. 9, — " Yet, 
since our Lord, who foresaw men's necessities, after he h?d 
delivered the rule of prayer, said particularly, 'Ask and ye 
shall receive ; ' and there are several things which need to be 
ashed according to every one's circumstances, — the rightful 
and ordinary prayer being first used as a foundation, we may 
lawfully add other desires, and build other petitions upon it. 11 

Origerts testimony on this subject is very full. This father 
flourished about A. D. 230. In his eighth book against Celsus, 
from page 386, to page 402, there is much that might be 
quoted. The following passages among others, occur, — " We 
worship one God and his one Son, who is his word and image, 
with supplications and honors, according to our ability.'' 1 
Again ; " but the Grecian christian in Greek, the Romans in 
Latin, and every one in his own proper language, prays to God, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 259 

and praises him as he is able. Lord chancellor King, after 
quoting Origen's comment on the injunction, not to use " vain 
repetitions; 1 has this judicious observation,—" Surely this cau- 
tion had been needless, of strictly observing the words that 
they uttered, and this fear had been groundless, of expressing 
themselves indecently, or sinfully, if they had a prayer-book to 
recur to." 

Dr. Porter, in his Lectures on Homiletics, page 293, says,— 
" Origen, in his treatise on prayer, maintains the necessity of 
closing the eyes to avoid the interruption of external objects. 
In his treatise contra celsum, too, he says, that ' we should 
close the eyes of the body, and elevate those of the soul.' Now, 
it must have been a gift next to inspiration to read prayers 
with the eyes shut." 

Let me close those citations with a passage from Augustine, 
who flourished in the fourth century. He is enforcing the 
necessity of the people being taught to exercise humility and 
forbearance in estimating the gifts of ministers. He says, — 
De Catech. Ruclib. cap. ix, torn, iv, — " Make them understand 
that not the voice, but the feelings of the soul, reach the ear 
of God ; for then they will not laugh if they observe any of 
the bishops and ministers of the church are guilty of barbar- 
isms and solecisms in their praying to God." How, it may 
be asked, could the officiating ministers be guilty of barbar- 
isms and solecisms, in their praying to God, if they used 
precomposed forms? 

Will these testimonies be deemed sufficient ? I have more 
of them at hand, if they are called for; but I can not think 
that more are necessary. The truth is, the entire weight of 
testimony, and in fact, every thing that can have weight as 
testimony, is in favor of free prayer, both among the Jews 
and in the early christian church. Yet, Mr. Schuyler coolly 
tells us, and leaves it there, as though it were a settled fact, 
that we have no record of extempore prayer in the church, in 
any part of Christendom previous to the reformation ! He has 



260 THE CHURCH, 

the authority of the bishop of Vermont for this, I know ; but 
with the bishop of Vermont, who, by the way, is no more 
bishop of Vermont than I am, but of a very few feeble Epis- 
copal congregations in that state, it is just as unproved an 
assertion as it is with the real bishop of St. John's church in 
the city of Buffalo. I have read Dr. Hopkins' lecture on 
liturgies, in his book entitled, " The Primitive Church," and 
find that it contains all Mr. Schuyler has said on this subject, 
with a remarkable similarity in the manner of saying it, and 
some things besides, which I regret Mr. Schuyler did not say, as 
it would have afforded me peculiar pleasure to reply to them. 
For example, I would have liked to show how sorely pushed 
for an argument a man must be, when he finds it necessary to 
quote in defense of liturgies, Paul's words to Timothy, — 2 
Tim. i : 1 3, — " Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou 
hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus ! " 
I would have liked to solve also, what seems to Dr. Hopkins, 
on our principles, so incredible a marvel, as, "that such an 
alteration," as the introduction of liturgical services in the place 
of free prayer, in the public worship of God, "could have 
taken place in the primitive church, without noise, without 
opposition, yea, so quietly, and so much in the dark, that not 
one line remains to testify the fact to after ages." The wonder, 
demanding an explanation, might be somewhat diminished to 
his view, by letting him know that instead of there being "not 
one line left to testify the fact (of this change) to after ages," 
a very distinct, and satisfactory, and credible account of the 
change is actually upon record, and may be exhibited to him 
at any time that he desires to be enlightened. For the rest, 
how does he know that this change took place " without noise," 
and " without opposition V 3 

A change in the manner of public worship, which took place 
more than fourteen hundred years ago, may have excited oppo- 
tion and a noise, or it may not. If we have historical evidence 
of the change itself, we may well be content, without demanding 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 261 

an account of all the minute details and particular circum- 
stances attending it. For all that appears to the contrary, there 
may have been noise and opposition enough to satisfy even 
Dr. Hopkins, could he be sufficiently certified of it, that the 
introduction of liturgies was an innovation on all former usage. 
But, how, he asks, would the christians of that age submit to 
such a change at all ? _ « Let us only imagine what a clamor 
would be raised, if any man or set of men should try to in- 
troduce liturgies among our Presbyterian or Congregational 
brethren. Let any degree of practicable human management 
be used to change their habits on this subject, and I venture to 
say, that if the attempt succeeded at all, it would be but par- 
tially, and at the cost of an open and bitter schism." The Dr. 
is right in this, beyond the shadow of a doubt. But is there 
no difference between the circumstances of his Presbyterian 
and Congregational brethren at the present day, and those of 
the christians of the fourth and fifth centuries ? I believe I 
may venture to ask Dr. Hopkins himself, if he does not think 
that we are rather their superiors in point of intelligence? 
Certainly, he will own that among us there is no monarchical 
power to make changes at its will, resembling the well-grown 
hierarchy of the period at which we affirm that the change 
under consideration was introduced. So far from its being a 
wonderful thing, that such a change should have been made, 
and the people should have submitted to it, we rather look upon 
it as most natural, that when the christian ministry, according 
to all historical evidence, was filled with extremely illiterate 
men, wholly incompetent to conduct the services of religion 
themselves, the idea of providing them with written prayers 
should have occurred to the governors of the church ; and we 
see nothing more difficult to understand, in the supposition that 
the people, as ignorant, to say the least, as their priests, and by 
this time accustomed to submit to the domination of their 
bishops, should have accepted the change when it was imposed 
upon them. That, therefore, which seems to Dr. Hopkins a 



262 THE CHURCH, 

" wild supposition" I think will not seem so to others ; and the 
marvel which overwhelms his powers of conception, I am per- 
suaded, will very generally appear a most natural and rational 
affair. 

I shall not attempt to follow Mr. Schuyler in his argument 
for liturgies on the ground of expediency. 

We object to liturgies on the ground of expediency, affirm- 
ing, — First, that they are unfavorable to devotion, and tend to 
mere formality in religion. 

Second. That they can not be framed so as to meet all the 
possible and ever actually recurring wants of the soul, and to 
be adapted to all the varied and ever varying circumstances of 
the church. 

We object to them farther and mainly, on the ground that 
they are totally destitute of authority in the scriptures, being 
mere devices of men, and corruptions of the worship which 
God himself has sanctioned, and which is commended to us by 
the practice of our Lord, of his apostles, and the first christians. 

The main practical objection to free prayer, which is urged 
by our author, is stated on page 174, as follows: 

" Who that has attended public worship thus conducted, has 
not often gone away, feeling that his spiritual desires have been 
unsatisfied, and that there was much in his heart which had 
found no expression in the prayers of the minister ? Or, who 
has not been pained with listening to irreverent and unsuitable 
petitions, or chilled with the set phrases, and stiff and formal 
sentences of the dull and lifeless petitioner, or shocked by the 
reckless discussion of some favored topic of fanaticism ? " 

I think it will not be considered unfair, if I refeather this 
shaft, and send it back. My opinion is, that it will fly as well 
in that direction as in this, and stick there as well as here. 

Who, that has attended public worship in churches where a 
liturgical service was employed, if of a devotional frame of 
mind, has not often gone away feeling that his spiritual desires 
have been unsatisfied, and that there was much in his heart 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 263 

that had found no expression in the prayers that the minister 
read out of his book ? Or, who has not been pained by the 
light and irreverent manner in which the prayers were read, as 
well as by the " vain repetitions," and sometimes unscriptural 
doctrine of the prayers themselves; or chilled with the set 
phrases and monotonous petitions of the book, made still more 
set and monotonous by the affected drawl of the dull and life- 
less reader; or shocked by the exhibition of the most unmis- 
takable signs, that what was a mere form in the letter, was a 
mere form also in the spirit, and hardly reverenced even as a 
form of worship offered to God ? 

For the edification of my readers, and possibly of Mr. 
Schuyler himself, I will here describe a veritable scene, of which 
I myself was a disgusted eye-witness, seven years ago, in Lon- 
don. Attracted by, I hope, a pardonable curiosity, I attended 
morning service, one day, at St. Paul's, the very high place of 
episcopacy in England. The litany was chaunted by the offi- 
ciating minister of the day, assisted in the responses by three 
or four little boys, frocked in white, who stood in a side gallery 
opposite the reading desk. During the entire service the boys 
were making themselves merry, in a quiet way, at something 
that amused them in the congregation. There were, in all, 
perhaps fifty persons in attendance. In the course of the cere- 
mony, the minister, who probably had been hastily summoned 
from his dreams to engage in this duty, actually went through 
with the most offensive operations of his neglected toilette, 
occupying with this most devout exercise, chiefly, the time of 
the responses. First, he pared and scraped his nails ; then with 
an ear-shovel he removed the serum from the cavities of his 
ears, examining the shovel after each use of it, apparently to 
see what was obtained. When this was done, the tweezers 
were applied to his reverend nose, and many a quick jerk bore 
witness that this labor, at least, was not a form. The toilette 
and the prayers were concluded together. 



264 THE CHURCH, 

You look incredulous, gentle reader, but I do assure you that 
what I have described, without exaggeration or adornment, my 
own eyes saw. You may suggest that I had no business to be 
looking about me in such a place. Perhaps I had not, but I 
did, nevertheless. Confiteor mihi peccatum* 

Alas ! alas ! for the unseemly possibilities of our Presbyterian 
prayers. It must> at least, be owned that we would not find it 
easy to beat his reverence of St. Paul's. 

The only farther comment that I desire to make, involves 
another story. When this most edifying service was ended, I 
passed out of the chapel, into the nave of the cathedral, where, 
after a little time, I was joined by that Mr. Huntington who 
wrote the silly, but somewhat 'celebrated religious romance, 
entitled "Lady Alice." He was then, a high-toned Episco- 
palian, but has since yielded to his tendencies, and joined the 
Roman Catholics, "Well," said Mr. H. in a very low tone of 
voice, as though he felt himself to be standing on holy ground, 
" tell me, Mr. Thompson, what impression has this service made 
upon your mind ? " Do you really wish me, I replied, to tell 
you exactly what I think of it ? " Oh, certainly ; of course." 
Well then, my dear sir, said I, to speak with entire plainness, 
and I beg you will not take it as a personal affront, I think it 
is one of the biggest humbugs in all London. " I can only 
say," rejoined Mr. H. with a most lugubrious roll of his eyes, 
as, after a little hesitation, he turned away from me, apparently 
horrified at my impiety, — "I can only say that your opin- 
ion evinces a very imperfect development of the religious 
principle in you/ 17 

I will only add, that there is evidently no security in a 
liturgy, against the evil of which Mr. Schuyler complains. On 
the lips of a buffoon, or a fop, or a fool, even the Lord's prayer 
may be divested of all its power to enliven and edify the souls 
of men. I do not deny, that there may have been sometimes 
in Presbyterian pulpits, mournful and mortifying exhibitions, 
both of mental and moral incapacity to conduct the devotions 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 265 

of God's people, but I do deny that in this respect Episcopa- 
lians have any advantage over us. I affirm, on the contrary, 
that they greatly suffer in a comparison. 



MR. SCHUYLER'S APPENDIX. 

I propose briefly to notice a variety of matters which our 
author has collected from various sources, and thrown together 
in a heterogeneous mass, at the end of his volume. His first 
article is an extract from bishop Macoskry, of Michigan, on the 

REPUBLICAN CHARACTER, OF THE AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Why he deemed it necessary to introduce this topic, I can 
not imagine, unless he felt a suspicion that the point to which 
it relates is one on which his church is peculiarly vulnerable. I 
do not see that it has any intimate relation to the object of his 
book, or that it can seriously affect, either way, the main ques- 
tion in debate between us. Either, he had some special reason 
for being sensitive on this subject, and therefore availed himself 
of this not very suitable occasion for relieving his mind, or else, 
which perhaps is the more charitable conclusion, he barely 
wanted an appendix, a tail to his kite, and fancied this would 
do to begin with, as well as any thing. Bishop Macoskry says, 
" At the time of our civil revolution, the church, as is well 
known, separated herself entirely from the jurisdiction of a for- 
eign bishop, and declared her independence," &c. &c. Was it 
at the time of our civil revolution, or after? Did the Episcopal 
church sympathize with the spirit of that great national move- 
ment, and co-operate with it; or, when the movement was 
perfected, did she ungracefully submit to a necessity, and con- 
form herself, for the sake of her own existence, to her altered 
circumstances? I am not going into a discussion of this 
13 



266 THE CHURCH, 

subject. If any of my readers desire to see full justice done to 
it, I recommend them to the able work of Dr. Thomas Smyth, 
of Charleston, S. C, on " Ecclesiastical Republicanism." What 
attitude the Episcopal church in this country occupied " at the 
time of our civil revolution," is very well understood by those 
who are at all conversant with the history of that eventful and 
trying period. That, from the beginning to the end, it was an 
attitude of decided and earnest protest, I can not suppose that 
any man needs to be informed, for it is notorious, that as a 
body, the Episcopalians of the country were either openly 
or covertly devoted to the English interest, and that great 
numbers of their clergy resigned their charges and went 
home in disgust, while those who remained, as a general 
thing, both preached and prayed against the cause of the 
colonies. 

Whether the Episcopal church is republican or otherwise in 
its present peculiar organization, I have no disposition to in- 
quire. That the Presbyterian church is so in a pre-eminent 
degree, everybody knows, who knows any thing about it. I 
feel very much as a distinguished friend of mine, Dr. Joel Par- 
ker, expressed himself on another subject, some few years ago, 
in the city of Philadelphia. It was at an anniversary meeting 
of the Pennsylvania Bible Society, on which occasion Dr. P. 
was one of the speakers. He had been preceded by Rev. Dr. 
Tyng, who, with all his christian liberality, can never suffer an 
opportunity to slip unimproved, of bestowing his laudations on 
" the church." Dr. T. had been boasting of his long and de- 
voted attachment to the cause then advocated before the meet- 
ing, and reiterating his assurances to the congregation that his 
church loved it, and that his brethren in the ministry loved it, 
and especially, that he knew it to be dear to the heart of their 
newly-elected bishop (Dr. Potter) whom he desired to com- 
mend to their esteem and confidence as a staunch friend of the 
Bible Society. When Dr. Parker arose, he said, "We are 
pleased to hear that the Episcopal clergy are so favorable to 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 267 

the dissemination of the bible, and especially, that this is true 
of the bishop elect of the Episcopal church in this state. We 
shall be happy, when he arrives, to give him the right hand of 
fellowship, and to own that he is almost as good a bishop as 
any of us." My friend's .politeness evidently betrayed him 
into a slight extravagance here. "In regard to us Presby- 
terians," he continued " there is no occasion for giving assur- 
ances of our devotion to the work in which this society is 
engaged. You all know where we stand. A Presbyterian, 
of course," &c. &c. 

So precisely, in regard to civil liberty. A Presbyterian, of 
course, is a liberty-man, and a liberty-supporting man, the 
world over. As far as it is possible for him to be so, he is a 
republican, in whatever age, or in whatever country you find 
him. He believes that the bible teaches the simplest and 
purest principles of democracy ; that it is opposed to the rule 
of all kings but Christ, and that it aims to establish, ere the 
world shall be burnt up, universal freedom, and equal rights, 
under a universal sovereignty of the people. This is part of a 
Presbyterian's religious faith. We need not proclaim the 
republicanism of our church. The world has been well 
instructed on this point. 

Bancroft, in his history of the United States, says, — " We 
are proud of the free states that fringe the Atlantic. The pil- 
grims of Plymouth were Calvinists ; the best settlers of South 
Carolina came from the Calvinists of France; William Penn 
was the disciple of the Huguenots; — the ships from Hol- 
land that first brought colonists to Manhattan were filled with 
Calvinists. He that will not honor the memory, and respect 
the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of 
American liberty." In connection with this, may be cited 
the admission of Thomas Jefferson, an admission which is the 
more valuable in consequence of his well known dislike of the 
men whom he thus honored, that, to no class of persons in this 
country was the successful issue of the American struggle for 



268 THE CHURCH, 

independence more directly attributable, than to the ministers 
of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches. 

Gibbon says, — " After we pass the difficulties of the first 
century, we find the Episcopal form universally established, till 
it was interrupted by the republican spirit of the Swiss and 
German reformers, for Calvin, though born in France, was 
a Swiss reformer" 

When the unhappy Charles First was urged to give his assent 
to the act of Parliament for abolishing episcopacy, he wrote to 
lord Jermyn, lord Culpepper, and Mr. Ashburnham, his tried 
friends and counsellors, as follows : " Show me any prece- 
dent where presbyterial government and regal were together 
without perpetual rebellions, which was the cause that necessi- 
tated the king, my father, to change that government in Scot- 
land. And in France, where they are upon tolerance, (which 
in likelihood should cause moderation,) did they ever sit still 
so long as they had power to rebel ? And it can not be other- 
wise, for the ground of their doctrine is anti-monarchical. I 
will say, without hyperbole, that there was not a wiser man 
since Solomon than he who said i JVo bishop, no king.'' " 

King James, at the Hampton court conference, held by him 
in 1604, happening to hear bishop (then Dr.) Reynolds use the 
word presbytery, broke out in the following language : " You 
are aiming at a Scot's presbytery, which agrees with monarchy 
as well as God and the devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, 
and Dick shall meet, and at their pleasure censure me and my 
council, and all our proceedings." 

Similar testimonies and admissions might be furnished with- 
out number. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 2 69 



THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 

I said, in the appendix to my sermon, page fifty-five, " The 
ancient authors on whom prelatists mainly rely, are Clement, 
who flourished about A. D. 100, Ignatius, his cotemporary, and 
Ireneus, who lived nearly a century later." I might have said, 
that Ignatius alone, is the witness among those who are com- 
monly styled the apostolic fathers, on whom their dependence 
is placed. Thus an Episcopalian, author of Letters on the 
Fathers, page sixty-seven, says, — " As to bishops distinct from 
presbyters, we have no evidence, except that of Ignatius, for the 
first two centuries. Clement and Poly carp most clearly recog- 
nize but two orders. Barnabas and Hermas have nothing very 
distinct on the subject. Justin mentions only two officers in 
the church in his time, whom he calls president and deacon. 
Ireneus uses the terms bishop and presbyter indiscriminately. 
Thus we see, the weight of evidence, during the first two cen- 
turies, is against three orders, — which may naturally create 
suspicion that those passages in Ignatius which refer to them 
are interpolations ; for he stands alone in what he states for the 
first two centuries; and not only alone, but opposed by the 
strongest authorities during that period." 

This father, to whom any number of epistles have at differ- 
ent times been attributed, is not now regarded by any as being 
the author of more than seven, and of these seven, the genuine- 
ness of four, those to the Magnesians, Trallians, Smyrnaeans, 
and Philadelphians, has always been disputed. It has, never- 
theless, been the habit of authors to quote from all of them, — it 
being understood that their doubtful authority should be taken 
at its duly depreciated value. In our controversy with Epis- 
copalians, seeing that the genuineness of all the seven epistles 
is claimed by them, we feel at liberty to quote even from 
those which we hold to be apocryphal. Though the author- 
ity is not respected by us, it is by them, and we are willing 



270 THE CHURCH, 

to show them how weak is their position, even where they 
consider it most impregnable. Yery recently, however, there 
have been made important discoveries in regard to these Igna- 
tian epistles, which, I am inclined to think, will effectually 
exclude from all credit the four that I have named, and con- 
sign them henceforth, by general consent, to the catalogue 
of admitted forgeries. I refer those who desire particular in- 
formation, to the number of the Edinburgh Review for July, 
1849, article sixth. The article is a notice of the " Corpus Igna- 
tianum, by William Cureton, M. A., F. R. S." This work was 
published in London, in 1849, and judging from what appears 
in the Review, I am satisfied that it does contain testimony 
which, by the learned world, will be regarded as conclusive, that 
the four epistles above named are spurious, and that even the 
three which are admitted to be genuine, are sadly infected with 
interpolations. 

The state of the Ignatian controversy, independently of 
Mr. Cureton's discoveries, can not be more distinctly or briefly 
presented, than in the following extract from the article in 
the Edinburgh Review : — " The fact of epistles having been 
written by Ignatius to different christian communities, a short 
time before his martyrdom, is sufficiently well attested. They 
are mentioned by respectable authors of the second and third 
centuries, — by Polycarp, Ireneus, Theophilus of Antioch, and 
Origen, — who refer to or quote three several epistles, still 
extant ; but do not intimate that any others were then in exist- 
ence. In the fourth century, however, Eusebius specifies 
seven epistles, attributed to Ignatius, as being current in his 
time ; but speaks of them in guarded terms, as if he were not 
perfectly satisfied of their genuineness. He states indeed, that 
those addressed to the Romans and to Polycarp, had been 
mentioned by ancient writers ; and he might have added the 
testimony of Origen with regard to the one to the Ephesians. 
But neither he nor any one else adduces ancient evidence on 
behalf of those to the Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 271 

and Smyrnaeans, which were circulated along with the others in 
the fourth century. Here then, we have three documents, indu- 
bitably known at a very early period, placed in company with 
four others, which, as far as we know, were never heard of 
before the fourth century. The question, therefore, naturally 
arises, whether all seven are to be put on the same footing ? or, 
whether the same process of amplification was exercised on 
Ignatius, to which St. Clement had been subjected in the pre- 
vious century? This point was argued, pro and con, with 
great ability in the seventeenth century ; but, as is generally 
the case in controversies, when the data are scanty, and the 
opponents equally matched and equally confident, with very 
unsatisfactory results." 

The question respecting the genuineness of the four disputed 
epistles may be regarded as having been, previous to the 
publication of Mr. Cureton, pretty equally balanced, — prela- 
tists affirming, and others denying. The testimony of arch- 
bishop Usher may be appealed to as confirming what I say, of 
the perfectly unsettled state of this controversy. At the time 
of the reformation no less than fifteen epistles were extant in the 
church, supposed to have been written by Ignatius. Eight of 
these were so evidently forgeries, that on the slightest inspec- 
tion, their credit was destroyed, even with those who would 
have been most interested in maintaining it. They had mani- 
festly been composed for the purpose of fraudulently maintain- 
ing the influence of the hierarchy, being filled with the most 
inflated representations of the importance and high authority 
of the episcopal office. 

The four disputed epistles that remain, present nearly all 
the marks internally of having been forged for party purposes, 
which are presented by the eight rejected ones, and difler 
from them in no important respect, save that they are mani- 
festly of an earlier date, having been doubtingly mentioned by 
EuseHus. Butwhy is there no mention of them byanya^r 
who proceeded Eusebius* Why do not Polycarp, Leneus, 



272 THE CHURCH, 

Theopliilus, and Origen, who distinctly mention the other 
three, take some notice of these also? We can account for 
their utter silence concerning these epistles in no other way, 
than by supposing that they had no knowledge of them, 
because the epistles had no existence ; and knowing, as we do, 
that the episcopal leaven had begun to work before the time of 
Eusebius, and that the fashion of forging epistles for party 
purposes had been introduced, we are furnished with the ground 
of a supposition in regard to them, which . reasonably satisfies 
our minds, if it does not the minds of our opponents in this 
debate. 

This much may be safely said, that the epistles to the 
Magnesians, Trallians, Smyrnseans, and Philadelphians, do not 
stand upon such ground of evidence, as can justify an appeal 
to them for the settlement of debated questions of christian 
faith and practice. 

In regard to the acknowledged works of the ancient fathers, 
those passages in them which bear strongly on controverted 
subjects, are always to be taken with many grains of allowance. 
Who knows whether they are interpolations or not ? or whether, 
at least, they have not been subjected to important verbal alter- 
ations 1 If the rage for accumulating testimony of this kind 
was such as to multiply without number entire works of im- 
posture, ascribing them to authors who would have blushed to 
see their names so employed, who can doubt that the genuine 
productions of these authors, as far as it could safely be done, 
were tampered with, and corrupted for similar ends ? 

In regard to the epistles of Ignatius, the London Christian 
Observer, one of the oldest and most respectable Episcopalian 
periodicals now published, holds the following language: "In 
these epistles we have the same order of bishops, priests, and 
deacons, marshalled with unseasonable exactness, and repeated 
with importunate anxiety. There appear, moreover, so many 
symptoms of contrivance, that these compositions will surely not 
be alledged by any capable and candid advocate for primitive 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 273 

episcopacy, without great hesitation; by many they will be 
utterly rejected." The writer asserts, in the same connection, 
that in all the particular passages which bear most strongly on 
the episcopal controversy, " the language, at the earliest, is that 
of the fourth century* 

" It is impossible," says Mr. Riddle, " to attach any impor- 
tance to any separate portions of these epistles, in which it is 
highly probable that spurious clauses have been artfully mixed 
up with the genuine expressions of the apostolical fathers " 

Let no one suppose that I desire to destroy the credit of 
these ancient writings, through fear of any legitimate use that 
can be made of them in this controversy. I still affirm, with 
the Episcopal writer whom I have already quoted, that the 
weight of evidence during the first two centuries, is against our 
opponents, and in our favor. 

Of the quotations from Ignatius, made by Dr. Carmichael, 
with which our author has favored us, two only, the first and 
the last, are from epistles acknowledged to be genuine. 

Epistle to the Ephesians, Sec. 2. — I transcribe the im- 
portant sentence. — " For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, 
is sent by the will of the Father; as the bishops appointed unto 
the utmost bounds of the earth, are, by the will of Jesus Christ." 
The entire value to Episcopalians of this passage depends upon 
the occurrence of the word " bishops " in it, and the sheer as- 
sumption that that word stands for something more than ordi- 
nary christian ministers. What right have they to make such 
an assumption ? We insist that they have none whatever. In 
the writings of the apostles, in the New Testament, they are 
forced to own that the word bishop is convertable with presby- 
ter, and means always the very same thing. On what ground, 
then, do they assume that in the writings of those who imme- 
diately succeeded the apostles, it means something different? 
Let them show, if they can, a single substantial reason for sup- 
posing that the use of the word was so early changed. This 
they°can not do. Substitute in this passage from Ignatius, 
13* 



274 THE CHURCH, 

ministers for bishops, or understand the latter word in the 
authorized scriptural sense, and then the passage stands for 
precisely what it is. 

Sec, 4. " Wherefore it will become you to run together, ac- 
cording to the will of your bishop, as also ye do. For your 
famous presbytery (worthy of God,) is fitted exactly to the 
bishop as the strings are to the harp." It is to be observed 
again, that the use of the word "bishop" proves nothing. 
Neither does that superiority of the bishop, indicated by the 
exhortation to " run together, according to his will," pro /e aay 
thing, for it is barely coincident with all those directions given 
to christians in the New Testament, which inculcate subordina- 
tion and obedience to those who have authority in the church, — 
see 1 Tim. v: 17, — " Let the elders (presbyters) that rule well 
be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor 
in the word and doctrine." That is, especially let double honor, 
the honor of reverence and subjection, be shown to those elders 
to whom is especially committed the instruction and spiritual 
oversight of the church. 

What Ignatius intended by saying that the " presbytery is 
fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp," I 
am not able with certainty to say. I suppose that by the pres- 
bytery he meant the college or board of elders in any church, 
and that he designed to magnify the office of the presiding 
elder or pastor, by pointing out its beautiful adaptation, in 
connection with the entire eldership, to all the purposes of 
church government. The well-understood constitution of our 
Presbyterian churches may serve as an illustration. If any 
thing more can be fairly made of it, let Dr. Carmichael, or any 
of his brethren show what more. 

Epistle to Polycarp, Sec. 6. — "Hearken unto the bishop, 
that God also may hearken unto you. My soul be security for 
them that submit to their bishop, with their presbyters and 
deacons; and may my portion be together with theirs in God." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. m 

The first sentence here may be explained by what Christ 
said to his disciples, Matt, x: 40,-" He that reeeiveth you 
receiveth me, and he that reeeiveth me, receiveth him that sent 
me.'' The bishop is the pastor of the church, the minister of 
Christ, God's embassador to men, and to hearken to him is 
certainly the way to obtain the divine favor. The language 
of Ignatius here is eminently Presbyterian. In each of our 
churches, when the complement of office-bearers is perfect, 
there is first a bishop or pastor, who is also an elder; then the 
presbyters or elders, whose duty it is to assist the pastor in 
the spiritual oversight of the church, and in the administration 
of discipline ; and finally, the deacons, who serve tables, and 
look after the poor. The arrangement in an Episcopal church 
is very different, and such as does not at all agree with what 
Ignatius says. An Episcopal church has a bishop, who com- 
monly resides at a distance, rarely visiting it, and who, when he 
does visit it, is hardly brought in any way into contact with the 
people, so that he can scarcely be said to bear rule over them. 
The clergy are ruled by the bishop, but if there is any ruling 
in the churches themselves, over the people who compose them, 
I do not well see how it is done by the bishop. They ordi- 
narily know very little about him, so that his government, in 
fact, is more nominal than real. Then they almost never have 
either presbyters or deacons. They have a single presbyter, or 
a single deacon. If it is a presbyter, then they have no dea- 
con. If it is a deacon, then they have no presbyter. JSTow 
suppose that some great saint were to write an epistle to my 
brother Schuyler's church, in the city of Buffalo, and in the 
course of his earnest exhortation should say, — " My soul be 
security for them that submit to their bishop with their presby- 
ters and deacons." The people might say,—" We are quite 
willing to submit to the bishop in all things that are right and 
proper, though we do not see him oftener than once a year, and 
then only for a little time in church, on Sunday ; but as for 
presbyters, we have but one, and we have no deacons at all 



276 THE CHURCH, 

We are above deacons, having a priest in full orders*" If this 
saint's letter were addressed to all the Episcopalians in Buffalo, 
the comment upon it might be much the same, for I believe 
there is not an Episcopal deacon in the city — I do not know of 
any. Such a letter, addressed to any one, or to all of our 
Presbyterian churches, would find a state of things, on the 
contrary, exactly corresponding to its terms. 

Both of these quotations, therefore, from undoubted epistles 
of Ignatius, I claim as direct and clear testimony in our favor, 
and against our opponents, nor will any disinterested person 
deny that they are so. 

Our adversaries seem to think that wherever three grades of 
officers in the church are mentioned, it is proof positive of 
three grades in the ministry ; and although they are forced to 
own, that the term bishop, in the New Testament, means 
nothing but presbyter, yet, the very instant they find the word 
occurring in the writings of men, who flourished even before 
the last of the New Testament writers was dead, they insist 
upon attaching to it, without the shadow of a reason, a meaning 
to suit their own party views ; and that too, in spite of the 
clearest evidence shown by us, that the fathers used the terms 
bishop and presbyter convertibly, precisely as the apostles 
themselves did. 

In regard to the other testimonies taken from the pretended 
epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, 
and Smyrnseans, I have only to ask, that the language in 
which they are expressed, may be compared with the language 
used by the New Testament writers, in speaking on similar sub- 
jects ; and if any reasonable mind is not satisfied, either that 
Ignatius was crazed, or that these epistles are forgeries, or at 
least that the passages quoted are interpolations, then I shall be 
altogether disappointed. Look, for example, in the quotation 
from the epistle to the Trallians,— ■" Let all reverence the 
deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishops as the Father, and 
the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 277 

apostles." Did the disciple of the meek and lovely John, whose 
highest ambition was to be known as "the elder," and to be 
permitted to counsel and beseech men as one of them, write 
such stuff as this ? Will any one believe it ? What would the 
members of Mr. Schuyler's church think of their rector, if he 
should exhort them in such words as those which are here attri- 
buted to good old Ignatius ? Look also in section sixth, of the 
epistle to the Magnesians, — " I exhort you, that ye study to 
do all things in a divine concord, your bishops presiding in the 
place of God; your presbyters, in the place of the council of the 
apostles ; and your deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted 
with the ministry of Jesus Christ," &c. Not to dwell upon the 
important fact, that the writer ofHhis epistle, whoever he was, 
knew nothing of the modern theory of Episcopalianism, which 
puts the bishops, and not the presbyters, in the place of the 
council of the apostles, just let it be considered, whether the 
nonsense, if what seems rather blasphemous may be so de- 
scribed, of the " bishops presiding in the place of God," does 
seem less attributable to so good a man, as we all suppose 
Ignatius to have been, than to " that man of sin," who, it was 
said by Paul, 2 Thess. ii : 3, 4, should be quickly " revealed, 
the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above 
all that is called God, or that is worshiped ; so that he as God, 
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God ! " 
I might quote passage after passage, from these four epistles, 
which are at least of doubtful authority, and which I fully 
believe to be spurious, that would serve quite as strongly as 
those which I have noticed, to show, either that Ignatius did 
not write them, or that the voor old man was in no state of 
mind to write on any subject,— a fitter candidate for a cell in 
a mad-Jiouse, than for the place of teacher to the churches. 
Our Episcopal friends should consider it beneath them to rely 
for evidence on writings of such a character. If they will 
do so, however, it is a poor reliance, which can give them no 
possible advantage. 



278 THE CHURCH, 

I must close this article with a quotation from the glorious 
John Milton. I quote from Griswold's Philadelphia edition of 
Milton's prose works, from the dissertation on prelatical episco- 
pacy, vol. 1, page 38. — "Now come the epistles of Ignatius 
to show us, first, — that Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus ; 
next, to assert the difference of bishop and presbyters ; wherein 
I wonder that men, teachers of the Protestant religion, make 
no more difficulty of imposing on our belief a supposititious 
offspring of some dozen epistles, whereof five are rejected as 
spurious, containing in them heresies and trifles ; which can not 
agree in chronology with Ignatius, entitling him archbishop of 
Antioch Theopolis, which name of Theopolis that city had 
not till Justinian's time, long after, as Cedrenus mentions ; which 
argues both the barbarous time, and the unskillful fraud of him 
that foisted this epistle on Ignatius. In the epistle to those of 
Tarsus, he condemns them for ministers of Satan that say, 
1 Christ is God above all.' To the Philippians, them that kept 
their Easter as the Asian churches, as Poly carpus did, and them 
that fasted upon Saturday or Sunday, except one, he counts as 
those that had slain the Lord. To those of Antioch, he salutes 
the sub-deacons, chanters, porters, and exorcists, as if these had 
been orders of the church in his time ; those other epistles less 
questioned, are yet so interlarded with corruptions, as may 
justly endue us with a wholesome suspicion of the rest. As 
to the Trallians, he writes, that 'a bishop hath power over 
all, beyond all government and authority whatsoever.' Surely 
then, no pope can desire more than Ignatius attributes to every 
bishop; but what will become then of the archbishops and 
primates, if every bishop in Ignatius' judgment be as supreme 
as a pope ? To the Ephesians, near the very place from whence 
they fetch their proof of episcopacy, there stands a line that 
casts an ill hue upon all the epistle, — l Let no man err,' saith 
he, ' unless a man be within the rays or enclosure of the altar, 
he is deprived of the bread of life.' I say not but this may 
be stretched to a figurative construction; but yet, it has an iU 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 27 g 

look, especially being followed beneath with the mention of I 
know not what sacrifices. In the other epistle to Smyrna, 
wherein is written that, < They should follow their bishop as 
Christ did his Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; ' not 
to speak of the insulse and ill-laid comparison, this cited place 
lies on the very brim of a noted corruption, which, had they 
that quote this passage, ventured to let us read, all men would 
have readily seen what grain the testimony had been of, where 
it is said, < That it is not lawful without a bishop to baptize, 
nor to offer, nor to do sacrifice.' What can our church make 
of these phrases, but scandalous ? And but a little farther, he 
plainly falls to contradict the spirit of God in Solomon, judged 
by the words themselves : < My son,' saith he, ' honor God and 
the king ; but I say, honor God, and the bishop as high-priest, 
bearing the image of God according to his ruling, and of Christ 
according to his priesting; and after him, honor the king.' 
Excellent Ignatius! Can ye blame the prelates for making 
much of this epistle ? Certainly, if this epistle can serve you 
to set a bishop above a presbyter, it may serve you next to set 
him above a king. These, and other like places in abundance 
through all those short epistles, must either be adulterate, or 
else Ignatius was not Ignatius, nor a martyr, but most adulte- 
rate and corrupt himself. In the midst, therefore, of so many 
forgeries, where shall w T e fix, to dare say, this is Ignatius ? As 
for his style, who knows it, so disfigured and interrupted as it 
is ? Except they think, that where they meet with any thing 
sound and orthodoxal, there they find Ignatius; and then 
they believe him, not for his own authority, but for a truth's 
sake, which they derive from elsewhere. To what end, then, 
should they cite him as authentic for episcopacy, when they can 
not know what is authentic in him, but by the judgment which 
they brought with them, and not by any judgment which they 
might safely learn from him ? How can they bring satisfaction 
from such an author, to whose very essence, the reader must 
be fain to contribute his own understanding ? Had God ever 



280 THE CHURCH, 

intended that we should have sought any part of useful instruc- 
tion from Ignatius, doubtless he would not have so ill pro- 
vided for our knowledge, as to send him to our hands in this 
broken and disjointed plight ; and if he intended no such thing, 
we do injuriously in thinking to taste better the pure evangel- 
ical manna, by seasoning our mouths with the tainted scraps 
and fragments of an unknown table, and searching among the 
verminous and polluted rags, dropped overworn from the toiling 
shoulders of time, with these deformedly to guilt and interlace 
the entire, the spotless, and undecaying robe of truth, the 
daughter, not of time but of heaven, only bred up here below 
in christian hearts, between two grave and holy nurses, the 
doctrine and the discipline of the gospel." 



JOHN CALVIN'S VIEWS OF EPISCOPACY. 

The portion of our author's appendix relating to this subject, 
borrowed from Hobarts Apology, seems to have been intended 
as retaliatory for my unkind notice of the well-authenticated 
fact, that the pious reformers of England were dissatisfied with 
their own reformation, and would gladly have gone the whole 
length of their Presbyterian brethren on the continent. To 
make things even between us, on this score, the shade of bishop 
Hobart is evoked, to affirm that John Calvin was equally dis- 
satisfied with the reformation on the continent, and would 
gladly have arrested it at the same point at which it was 
arrested in England. I can not but wonder, that Mr. Schuyler 
should not have sought the nobler and more serviceable revenge 
of proving that my representation in regard to the English 
reformers was incorrect. This he has not even attempted to 
do. A generous friend, indeed, who has kindly stepped in to 
his assistance, has made a feeble reply,— see his book, page 
225, — to the effect that we are not to take the opinions of a few 
individuals of that time, as expressing the sense of the English 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. ? 81 

church. It seems to me, that on a point of such grand impor- 
tance for English episcopacy, there should have been a careful 
vindication. I refer again to Mr. Macaulay's statement, that 
the pious and leading reformers of England were not satisfied; 
and that the English church was the fruit of a compromise 
between the true friends of reform and the government, as 
setting forth a fact susceptible of the clearest demonstration. 
I say, and what I say can be proved — I believe every intelli- 
gent Episcopalian knows it can be proved — that the reforma- 
tion in England did not stop where it did, in consequence of 
a conviction in any man's mind, that it had already restored 
the church to its true scriptural - and primitive order, but 
because, for political and state reasons, wholly disconnected 
with religion, the government would not permit it to proceed 
farther. To exhibit the full proof on this subject, would demand 
greater space than can, at present, be afforded to it. It is on 
hand, however, and will be furnished when a suitable occasion 
shall require it. I shall recur to the subject again in this 
volume. At present, I must attend to bishop Hobart, and I 
am concerned to say, spoil Mr. Schuyler's revenge ; for what 
the bishop asserts concerning John Calvin, is not true. 

If John Calvin favored episcopacy, and desired to introduce 
it into the reformed churches on the continent, why have we 
not one word given to us in proof, from his own voluminous 
published writings? Why are we to be told what Toplady 
says, and what Toplady says that Strype says, and what Top- 
lady says that Strype says that archbishop Abbot says, accord- 
ing to something discovered among archbishop Usher's manu- 
scripts, after both these archbishops were dead ? Why, on so 
grave a subject as this, are we to be served with the mere gossip 
of discontented churchmen, who would have given the world 
for the testimony of such a name as Calvin's in favor of their 
system, instead of having produced to us the veritable words of 
John Calvin himself? I commend this passage from bishop 
Hobart, which Mr. Schuyler endorses by quoting, as a very fair 



282 THE CHURCH, 

specimen of that kind of reasoning for which this bishop was 
remarkable, and which gained for him the glory of a contro- 
versial martyrdom at the hands of John Mason. Did Mr. S. 
read it ? I am sure he did not examine its statements, or even 
he must have discovered their utter worthlessness. 

I have asked, Why are we not favored with a single testimony 
from Calvin's own writings, on this point, of his partiality for 
the Episcopal form of church order? and every one must 
admit that the demand is reasonable. Few men that ever 
lived have written and published so much, or upon so great a 
variety of subjects. Indeed, almost every thing that he ever 
did write, is in print, and easily accessible ; and I affirm that it 
is fair to say, that what can not be proved from his published 
works, on a point like this, can not be proved at all, and ought 
not to be asserted; more especially when, as in the present 
instance, the current testimony of his published works is 
exactly contrary to it. Next to the reformation of doctrine, 
the great business of Calvin's life was the reformation of church 
order, and his views on this latter subject are expressed freely 
and fully. Shall we set aside this free and full expression of 
his opinions, and, in order to determine what he really thought, 
go fishing with a long line of dead men's recollections in arch- 
bishop Usher's well, for scraps and bits of old letters ? 

I do not overlook the pretended quotation from Calvin's 
book " on the necessity of reforming the church." No indeed. 
I am not likely to overlook so choice a specimen of Jesuitical 
craft as that. I invite particular attention to it. 

Bishop Hobart wrote as follows, and Mr. S., never dreaming 
that a bishop could write nonsense, not to use a harder word, 
gives it to us as he finds it: 

"I can not avoid calling your attention to the following 
corroborating evidence that Calvin and the reformed divines 
approved of the episcopacy of the church of England, and 
would have adopted it, if circumstances had favored such a 
measure. The diligent, learned, and accurate historian, Strype, 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 283 

furnishes this evidence. It may be proper to premise that the 
following quotations from this historian have been adduced 
as decisive testimony of the preference of Calvin and other 
reformed divines, to the English episcopacy, by Rev. Augus- 
tus Toplady. * * * * Toplady, let it be remembered, 
was a rigid Calvinist, a warm admirer and panegyrist of Cal- 
vin, and his works rank high in the estimation of Calvinists. 
Strype and Toplady both adduce the passage in which Calvin 
denounces an anathema against all who should reject a primi- 
tive hierarchy, as a proof of his approbation of the episcopacy 
of the church of England. Toplady observes, 'that great 
reformer (Calvin) wished for the introduction of protestant 
episcopacy into the reformed churches abroad] and then he 
quotes the following passage from Strype — ' How Calvin stood 
affected in the said point of episcopacy, and how readily and 
gladly he and other heads of the reformed churches would 
have received it, is evident enough from his writings and 
epistles.' " 

I have been at the pains to transcribe all this medley of 
words, to show the reader how pompously the proof is ushered 
in. Surely, after all this parade of names and circumstances, 
we might expect something of real consequence, something 
very clear and specific to be adduced. What is it ? What is 
the evidence from John Calvin himself, which proves that he 
ardently desired to introduce the episcopacy of England into 
the reformed churches on the continent? Bishop Hobart 
proceeds, quoting still from Toplady's quotation of Strype : 

" l In his book (Calvin's) of the necessity of reforming the 
church, he hath these words : ' Talem nobis hierarchiam exhi- 
beant,' &c. — Let them give us such an hierarchy, (fee. Top- 
lady agrees with Strype in considering the above passage as 
a proof that Calvin's opinion was favorable to the English 



episcopacy.' " 



And it seems that bishop Hobart agrees with Strype, and 
Mr. Schuyler agrees with Strype. What delightful unanimity 



284 THE CHURCH, 

of sentiment is here exhibited ! All agree with Strype, that 
when John Calvin said — " Talem nobis hierarchiam exhibeant," 
&c. he meant — " Let them give us such a hierarchy" — as 
they have in the church of England, and we will consider our- 
selves the most favored and fortunate of men! The reader 
could suppose nothing else than that such, or such like, would 
of course be the onward rendering of Calvin's interrupted sen- 
tence. What will he think, when I tell him that Calvin, in that 
connection, is thinking as little of the church of England as he 
is of a church in the moon ? Let me explain the manner in 
which Calvin happens to use the words referred to, and show 
precisely the connection in which they stand. His book on 
"The Necessity of Reforming the Church," was addressed to 
the emperor Charles Fifth, and the imperial diet at Spires, A. D. 
1544. It is mainly a vindication of the reformed churches, and 
in this way an argument for the reformation of the church 
generally throughout the empire. This diet at Spires had been 
called for the special purpose of taking into consideration the 
state of the church, and devising means for its improvement. 
Calvin, in the first place, goes largely into a statement of those 
deep and dreadful corruptions in the church which had 
prompted the reformers to their course. He says in his open- 
ing, " I wish to show how just and necessary the causes were 
which forced us to the changes for which we are blamed." 
Next, he defends what had been done, and shows that " the 
remedies employed were just and salutary." Under this head 
he refers particularly, among other things, to their having 
adopted the principle of presbytery, in opposition to that of 
hierarchy, or prelatical episcopacy, and at great length vindi- 
cates this change. " In the government of the church," he says, 
" we do not differ from others in any thing for which we can not 
give a sufficient reason." He then proceeds to give reasons 
strong and cogent, fairly scouting at the assumed divine right 
of the Episcopal order, and the absurd dogma of the apostolical 
succession. " They quarrel with us," he says, " first, concerning 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 285 

the right and power, and secondly, concerning the form of 
ordination. They quote ancient canons which give the super- 
intendence of this matter to the bishops and clergy. They 
alledge a constant succession, by which this right has been 
handed down to them, even from the apostles themselves. They 
deny that it can be lawfully transferred elsewhere. I wish they 
had by their merit, retained a title to this boasted possession. 
But if we consider, first, the order in which for several ages 
bishops have been advanced to this dignity ; next, the manner 
in which they conduct themselves in it ^-afid" lastly, the kind of 
persons whom they are accustomed to ordain, and to whom 
they commit the government of the churches, we shall see 
that this succession, on which they pride themselves, was long 
ago interrupted." After alluding to some methods adopted to 
prevent men from " forcing an entrance by stealth into the 
episcopal office, or insinuating themselves by indirect artifices," 
he adds — "These things, I here only mention in passing, be- 
cause they afford an easy means of judging how much impor- 
tance is due to this smoke of succession, with which our bishops 
endeavor to blind us. They maintain that Christ left as a 
heritage to the apostles the sole right of appointing over 
churches whomsoever they pleased, and they complain that we, 
in exercising the ministry without their authority, have with 
sacrilegious temerity invaded their office." In addition to the 
utter want of authority for the hierarchical orders, he goes on 
to show how dreadfully abandoned and corrupt these orders in 
the church of Rome had become ; how the bishops had become 
nothing more than secular officers, had abandoned wholly their 
work as pastors, and had come to be mere scramblers after 
power, and place, and emoluments. In this connection occurs 
the remarkable passage on which Toplady, and Strype, and 
Hobart, and last of all Mr. Schuyler, agree, as proving that 
Calvin approved of the episcopacy of the church of England, 
and earnestly desired to introduce it into the reformed churches 
on the continent! Calvin says, pursuing his splendid appeal 



286 THE CHURCH, 

to the emperor and the diet — not, "Let them give us," a 
singular rendering for " exhibeant" — "Let them show, or 
produce to us such a hierarchy, (intimating that the challenge 
was a desperate one) in which the bishops are distinguished, 
but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in which they de- 
pend upon him as the only head, and act solely with reference 
to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each 
other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then 
indeed I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for 
those who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them 
the fullest obedience. But is there any thing like this in that 
false mask of hierarchy on which they plume themselves ? " — 
Now where is the allusion to the episcopacy of the church of 
England; or what proof does the passage afford, that Calvin 
desired to introduce such an episcopacy into the reformed 
churches on the continent? What does he say, except that 
had the Roman hierarchy been such an one as he described, he 
would not have deemed himself justifiable in rejecting it? 
Though he regarded it as not the best form of church govern- 
ment, as an unfortunate deviation from the simple order pre- 
sented in the New Testament, yet seeing that it was established 
in the church, he would not have rebelled against it, if it had 
not been corrupt ; and he would have counted worthy of the 
severest anathema those who did rebel, and thus introduce di- 
visions and strife for the sake of a mere unessential point of 
outward order. Calvin said in this passage, just what I, or any 
other, the most strenuous Presbyterian, might have said in the 
same circumstances. We do not think of defending the violence 
of the reformation on the ground alone of the hierarchism of 
the Romish church, but on the ground of the abominable cor- 
ruptions of that church in doctrine and morals, for which indeed 
ite hierarchism is in no small degree responsible. If the Romish 
church, hierarchical as it was, had been pure in christian doc- 
trine and practice, there is no difference of opinion among us, 
that it would have been both foolish and wicked to disturb and 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 287 

rend it for a reform of its outward order merely — and that 
those who should have done so, would have merited the severest 
anathema. Still, we say, that when, on other grounds, reform 
became indispensably necessary, when the very maintenance of 
religion itself depended upon it, it was then wise and proper, 
and so Calvin showed by his acts that he also judged, to lay 
the axe at the root of the tree, and to reform away, not alone 
the deadly depravities of the hierarchical church, but the hier- 
archy itself, and make the church what Christ and his apostles 
left it. The work of cleansing the augean stables being begun, 
it was well to make it thorough. 

If any desire to see other evidence that Calvin could not 
have desired to introduce such an episcopacy as that of the 
church of England into the reformed churches on the conti- 
nent, they may consult for themselves the following references : 
In his " Institutes of the Christian Religion," book 4, ch. iii, — ch. 
iv, — ch. v : sec. 1 5 ; also his commentary on Philip i : 1 ; 1 Tim. 
v: 17; Tit. i: 5; 1 Pet. v: 1, and Acts xx: 28. The opinions 
expressed in these places were written at different periods of 
his life ; some of them when he was a young man, and some 
of them not long before his death. I forbear, for the lack of 
room, from making these quotations at large, for to do justice 
to the subject, some of them would be very long. Whoever 
will take the trouble to consult them, will see more perfectly 
the justice of my remark, that Calvin could not have had the 
desire that is ascribed to him. But evidence enough is before 
the reader. If his own words, in what I have quoted from his 
book on the necessity of reforming the church, will weigh any 
thing against the testimony of Toplady and Strype, he did not 
believe in such an episcopacy as that of the church of Eng- 
land. He had neither faith in it> nor respect for it. Did he 
believe in that sort of episcopacy which rests upon the doctrine 
of apostolical succession in an order of bishops, distinguished 
as such, from presbyters? Will any man have the hardihood 
and reckless effrontry to say that he did, after reading the 



288 THE CHURCH, 

passages which I have quoted from him ? Yet he would gladly 
have introduced it, and was only prevented by circumstances ! 
What circumstances prevented him ? For a long time, as all 
authorities agree, his influence was such, especially in Switzer- 
land, among the reformed, that his will was law. This his 
enemies are very anxious to have understood, when they desire 
to fi.x upon him the reproach and shame of burning poor crazy 
Servetus. Why then, if he desired to introduce episcopacy, 
did he not introduce it ? What could have hindered him, if 
he had brought all his indomitable energy and overwhelming 
influence to bear on such an object ? 

Says bishop Hobart, proceeding to another point, — " Toplady 
asserts that ' Calvin made a serious motion of uniting Protest- 
ants together ; ' and in proof of his assertion, quotes again 
from Strype, — ' They (the foreign Protestants) took such great 
joy and satisfaction in this good king (Edward Sixth) and his 
establishment of religion, that Bullinger and Calvin, and others, 
in a letter to him, offered to make him their defender, and to 
have bishops in their churches, as there were in England; 
with a tender of their service to assist and unite together.' " 

The foreign Protestants did indeed take great joy and satis- 
faction in this good king ; for, knowing his character, his earnest 
piety, and his desire for a thorough work of reform in the 
church, and especially knowing the influence over him of such 
men as Hooper, Cranmer, Ponet and others, who all inclined 
strongly to Presbyterianism, they had the most sanguine expec- 
tations that the church in England would be placed, under his 
direction, upon a true scriptural foundation. Indeed, although 
it can not be said that there was any real establishment of reli- 
gion in Edward Sixth's time, but rather that things were rapidly 
approaching to an established state, yet already the strong fea- 
tures of the hierarchical system were beginning to disappear. 
"In fact," says McCrie, in his Life of Knox, referring for 
authority to Strype's Memorials of the Reformation, vol. 2, pp. 
144, 145, — " In fact the title of bishop was very generally 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 289 

disused in common speech during the reign of Edward Sixth, 
and that of superintendent substituted in its place. And this 
change of style was vindicated by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, 
m an answer which he published to a popish writer." An 
entire volume of further testimony on this point, from aU the 
ecclesiastical historians of this period, including bishop Burnet, 
and even Strype himself, might easily be furnished if it were 
necessary. 

" Bullinger and Calvin, and others," in such a state of things, 
may have written such a letter as is ascribed to them; but 
does it prove that they were hierarchists in principle, or that 
they would ever have consented to receive such bishops as 
were imposed upon the English church in the reigns immedi- 
ately succeeding the unhappy death, for England, of its 
beloved Edward? Like all Presbyterians, then and since, 
" Bullinger and Calvin, and others" were anxious for a consoli- 
dation of the strength of Protestantism. They were anxious 
to see all true christians united in a loving brotherhood ; and 
being willing for the sake of this, to make compromises and 
concessions in things unessential, and thinking that they saw in 
the happy auspices of the reign of Edward, the way becoming 
plain for consummating so cherished and dear an object, they 
may have written the letter referred to. 

What then ? Were they prelatists ? Would they have con- 
sented to receive the system of prelacy into their churches ? 
If bishop Hobart did not know the contrary, I am greatly 
mistaken. If Mr. Schuyler does not know the contrary, I 
advise him to study the history of this subject, just a little, 
before he publishes another book. 

Calvin did not object strongly to that kind of episcopacy 
which, in Edward Sixth's time, was on the eve of being estab- 
lished in England, which exists now in the Lutheran churches 
of Europe, and of which we have a sample in the Methodist 
church in this country. Although he certainly preferred, for 
the churches with which he was immediately connected, to 
14 



290 THE CHURCH, 

have no form of episcopacy whatever, except the simple form 
presented in the New Testament, that of pastors having the 
oversight of single congregations, yet he did, in certain cases, 
when there were peculiar reasons for it, recommend that men 
should be appointed by their brethren to a general and perma- 
nent superintendence of affairs. I have now before me, a letter 
written by him, December 9, 1544, to the king of Poland, in 
which he proposes something of the kind to be adopted in that 
country. But let the place be shown, in any of his writings, 
where he recommended or even spoke approvingly of such an 
episcopacy as that which now exists in England. It can not 
be done. This great man and true reformer had a supreme 
loathing for such episcopacy. He knew well, how, and where, 
and when, it originated, for what ends it had been maintained, 
and what had been its fruits, and he detested it as heartily as 
I do. John Calvin an advocate of the apostolical-succession 
episcopacy, and mourning because his beloved Genevan churches 
could not enjoy the blessings of it ! It is too ridiculous. 

Bishop Hobart says again, — " Toplady adduces from Strype 
* another very remarkable proof, both of Calvin's regard for 
episcopacy and of the manner in which a seeming difference 
arose between the plan of ecclesiastical government adopted 
by that reformer, and the plan of episcopal government adopted 
,by the church of England.' Toplady quotes ( a curious paper 
*n archbishop Abbot's own hand-writing, found among arch- 
bishop Usher's manuscripts, and published by Strype,' and then 
subjoins — ' so wrote that most respectable prelate, archbishop 
Abbot, whose evidence may be thus summed v up : Calvin's 
last letter concerning episcopacy, sent to the ruling clergy of 
England in the reign of Edward Sixth, was. craftily intercepted 
by Bonner and Gardiner, who (to crush Calvin's scheme for 
episcopizing the foreign protestant churches,) forged a surly, 
snappish answer to Calvin, in the names of the divines to whom 
it was addressed, but whose hands it had never reached. Cal- 
vin being disgusted at the rudeness with which he supposed 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. m 

his overture had been received, dropt all thoughts of making 
any further advances on the subject.' And thus, had not two 
Popish extinguishers put out the design, Calvin had admitted 
the discipline of the church of England, with as much zeal 
and heartiness, as the church of England actually adopted 
Calvin's doctrine." 

The Arminianism of bishop Hobart is considerably shocked 
by Toplady's concluding remark in this passage, that "the 
church of England adopted Calvin's doctrine," and he strongly 
denies it; but he is quite delighted with what goes before 
when, in fact, that concluding remark is the only truth in the 
entire extract. In the first place, Calvin wrote no letter to the 
ruling clergy of England in Edward Sixth's time, concerning 
episcopacy, if by episcopacy is understood that peculiar system 
of church government to which Toplady and Hobart were so 
much attached. I have shown already that Calvin never could 
have desired to have any fellowship with such a system. It 
was altogether a different kind of episcopacy, if any at all, that 
the ruling clergy of England, in Edward Sixth's time, were 
proposing for themselves. A mere system of superintendency, 
involving no essential contrariety to our own Presbyterianism. 
In the second place, the motive ascribed to Bonner and Gardi- 
ner, for their crafty interception of Calvin's letter and forged 
reply to it, is evidently not the real one. Instead of aiming 
u to crush Calvin's scheme for episcopizing the foreign protes- 
tant churches" it is much more reasonable to suppose that 
what they feared, and wished to thwart, was a scheme of the 
leading clergy of England for presbyterianizing the churches 
at home. It is easy enough to understand why Bonner and 
Gardiner should be anxious to arrest the reformatory move- 
ments in England, but very difficult to understand why they 
should be so eager to prevent the reformed churches on the 
continent from retrograding. Bonner and Gardiner were strain- 
ing every nerve, and not leaving any artifices unemployed, to 
hold things in the English church where they were, at least, 



292 THE CHURCH, 

or, if possible, to urge them back farther from Protestantism. 
It is easy enough, therefore, to see how they would naturally 
feel a lively jealousy of the intimacy that was every day increas- 
ing between the ruling clergy of England and such men as 
Calvin, and why they should wish to break it off. And now, 
to confirm the view of this matter which I have expressed, let 
me repeat former testimonies, and add others in regard to the 
real state of sentiment and feeling among the English re- 
formers, in the times of which we are speaking. We shall 
then be better able to judge, whether they were colleaguing 
with Calvin to episcopize the continent, or he with them to 
tmepiscopize England. 

These testimonies have been so well collated by M'Crie, in 
his life of John Knox, that I shall make no apology for appro- 
priating the entire note in which he presents them. It may be 
found at page 407, and onward, of the Philadelphia edition, 
and is as follows : 

SENTIMENTS OF ENGLISH REFORMERS, 

RESPECTING THE GOVERNMENT AND WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 

" I shall endeavor to compress the body of evidence which 
can be produced for the conformity between the private senti- 
ments of the English reformers respecting worship and church 
government, and those of Knox, along with the reformers of 
Switzerland and Geneva. Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 
1550, informs Bullinger that 'the archbishop of Canterbury, 
the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St. David's, Lincoln, and Bath, 
were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, 
agreeing in all things with the Helvetic churches.' — Burnet, 
iii, 201. Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, in a letter to Gualter, 
Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, < O ! would to God, would to 
God, once at last, all the English people would in good earnest 
propound to themselves to follow the Church of Zurich as the 
most absolute pattern.'— Strype's Annals, ii, 286, 342. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 293 

"Crannier expressed his opinion formally in writing, that 
< the bishops and priests were at one time one, and were no 
two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's 
religion.' <The bishop of St. David's, my lord elect of 
Westminster, Dr. Cox, Dr. Redman, say that at the beginning 
they were all one.'— Collier, ii, Records, No. 49; Burnet, i, 
Append, pp. 223-225. Thirteen bishops, with a great num- 
ber of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition, < that in 
the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees 
or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and 
of priests or bishops.'— Burnet, ut supra, p. 324. Cranmer 
says, < In the New Testament, he that is appointed a bishop or 
a priest, needeth not consecration, by the scripture, for election 
or appointment thereto is sufficient* And of the same judg- 
ment was the bishop of St. David's.— Ibid. 228, 230. Lati- 
mer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and 
presbyters, by divine institution. — Yoetii. Polit. Eccles. torn 
ii, p. 387. This was also the opinion of Pilkington, bishop of 
Durham. — Treatise on the burning of St. Paul's, apud Cald. 
Altare Damascenum, p. 204. Bishop Jewel assents to it in 
his Answer to Harding, page 121. And on the accession of 
Elizabeth, he expressed his hope, that 'the bishops would 
become pastors, laborers, and watchmen, and that the great 
riches of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to 
mediocrity, that, being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, 
they might take care of the flock of Christ' — Burnet, hi, 288. 
In the same year, Dr. Aylmer addressed the right reverend 
bench in these terms : < Come off, you bishops, away with your 
superfluities, yield up your thousands, be content with hun- 
dreds, as they be in other reformed churches, where there be 
as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priest- 
like and not princelike. Let the queen have the rest of your 
temporalities and other lands to maintain these warres which 
you procured, and your mistresse left her; and with the reste 
build and found scholes thorow out the realme : that every 



294 THE CHURCH, 

parishe church may have his preacher, every city his superin- 
tendent, to live honestly and not pompously ; which will never 
be onles your landes be dispersed and bestowed upon many, 
which now feedeth and fatteth but one. I would our country- 
man Wicliefe's boke which he wrote, De Ecclesia, were in 
print, and there should you see that your wrinches and cavil- 
lations be nothing worthie. It was my chaunce to happen of 
it in ones hand that brought it out of Bohemia.' — An Harbo- 
rowe for Faithful and Trew Subjects, sig. O, 4. Cranmer 
expressed himself in a similar strain respecting the ' glorious 
titles, styles, and pomps,' which were come into the church 
through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes, and pro- 
fessed his readiness to lay them aside. Strype's Cranmer, 
Append, p. 20. — Burnet, iii, 105. — Append, p. 88. In fact, 
the title of bishop was very generally disused in common 
speech during the reign of Edward Sixth, and that of superin- 
tendent substituted in its place. And this change of style was 
vindicated by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, in an answer which 
he published to a Popish writer. — Strype's Memorials of the 
Reformation, ii, 444, 445. 

" It was proposed by Cranmer to erect courts similar to the 
kirk-sessions and provincial synods afterward introduced into 
the Scottish church. — Burnet, iii, 214. — Reformatio Leg. 
Eccles. cap. 8, 10. He ardently wished the suppression of 
prebendaries, < an estate,' he said, ' which St. Paule, reckoning 
up the degrees and estates allowed in his time, could not find 
in the Church of Christ.' — Burnet, iii, Append, pp. 157, 158. 
All the Protestant bishops and divines in the reign of Edward 
Sixth were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline. Dr. Cox (Oct. 5, 1552) complains bitterly of the 
opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says, that, if 
it was not adopted, « the kingdom of God would be taken 
away from them.'— Latimer's Sermons, fol. cix, b. Lond. 1570. 
Strype's Memor. of the Reformation, ii, 366.— Repository of 
Orig. p. 150. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 295 

* Craniner and his colleagues were far from being satisfied 
with the purity of the last common prayer book of Edward; 
. and the primate had drawn up one which is said to have been 
< an hundred times more perfect;— Troubles at Franckfort, p. 
50. He and Ridley intended to procure an act for abolishing 
the sacerdotal habits ; < for they only defended their lawfulness, 
but not their fitness.' — Burnet's Letters respecting Switzerland, 
&c., p. 52.— Rotterdam, 1686. When Grindal was appointed 
to the bishopric of London, he * remained under some scruples 
of conscience about some things, especially the habits and 
certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. 
For the reformed in these times,' says Strype, 'generally 
went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing 
of the church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of 
Rome, every usage and custom practised by that apostate and 
idolatrous church should be abolished, — and that the service 
of God should be most simple, stript of all that show, pomp, 
and appearance, that had been customarily used before, es- 
teeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti- 
christian' — Life of Grindal, p. 28. Horn and others had the 
same views and scruples. ' By the letters,' says bishop Burnet, 
1 of which I read the originals, [in the archives of Zurich,] it 
appears, that the bishops preserved the habits rather in com- 
pliance with the queen's inclinations, than out of any liking 
they had to them ; so far were they from liking, that they 
plainly expressed their dislike of them.' — Burnet's Letters, ut 
supra, p. 51. Before they accepted the office, they endeavored 
to obtain the abrogation of the ceremonies ; and when the act 
enjoining them passed, they were induced to comply chiefly 
by their fears that Papists or Lutherans would be put into 
their places. — Strype's Annals, i, 175.— Burnet, ii, 376, and 
his Sermon on Psalm cxlv. 15, preached before the House of 
Commons, Jan. 1688. Cox writes to Bullinger, 5th May, 
1551, < I think all things in the church ought to be pure and 
simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and 



296 THE CHURCH, 

elements of the world. But in this our church what can I do 
in so low a station ? '— Strype's Memor. of the Reform, ii, 305. 
Burnet, iii, 202. Jewel, in a letter to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559, 
calls the clerical habits 'a stage-dress,' (vestis scenica,) to 
which those alone were attached, who ' had nothing else to 
recommend them to the people, but a comical dress,'' — ' stipites 
sine ino-enio, sine doctrina, sine moribus, veste saltern comica 
volebant populo commendari.' He engages that no exertions 
of his should be wanting to banish utterly these ridiculom 
trifles, 'ludicris ineptiis,' and relics of the Amorites, as his 
correspondent (he says) had well designed them. And, at a 
period still later, (Feb. 8, 1566,) he writes to Bullinger, that 
4 he wished that the very slightest footsteps of popery might 
be removed out of the church and minds of men ; but the 
queen would at that time suffer no change in religion.' — 
Burnet, iii, Append, p. 291, ii Append, p. 351, Strype's 
Annals, i, 174. Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they 
did not approve of, but merely suffered, kneeling in the 
eucharist, and signing with the cross in baptism, with some 
other ceremonies, hoping that they would speedily obtain their 
abrogation. — Burnet, ii, 310, 314. As to Parkhurst, bishop 
of Norwich, Pilkington of Durham, and Sands of Worcester, 
the non-conformists bear testimony, that these prelates dis- 
covered the greatest zeal in endeavoring to procure their 
abrogation. — Ibid, iii, 316. The most respectable of the 
clergy in the lower house were of the same sentiments with 
the bishops on this subject. In the year 1562, the abrogation 
of the most offensive ceremonies was, after long reasoning, put 
to the vote in the convocation, and carried by a majority of 
those present; but, when the proxies were included, there was 
found a majority of one for retaining them. The arguments 
used by archbishop Parker's chaplains to prevail upon the 
house to agree to this, derived their chief force from their 
being understood to be the sentiments of the queen. — Burnet, 
ii, Append, pp. 319, 320. Strype's Annals, i, 298-300. 



ITS MINISTRY AJSTD WORSHIP, 297 

From these facts (and a collection much more ample could 
easily be made) the reader will see who were the first puritan*, 
and how very different the sentiments of the English reformers 
were from those of their successors. Those good men who 
had the direction of ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Edward 
Sixth, thought it most prudent to proceed gradually and slowly, 
in removing the abuses, and correcting the evils, which had 
overspread the church; and to indulge the people for a season 
with those external forms to which they had been habituated, 
that they might draw them more easily from their superstitious 
notions and practices, and in due time perfect the reformation 
to the satisfaction of all. The plan was plausible; but its 
issue was very different from what was intended by those who 
proposed it. Nor was this unforeseen by persons who wished 
well to the church of England. After the bishops had 
resolved to rest satisfied with the establishment which they 
obtained, and felt themselves disturbed by the complaints of 
the Puritans, (as they were afterward called,) they endeavored 
to engage the foreign divines on their side ; and having, by 
partial representations, and through the respect entertained for 
the government of England, obtained letters from them some- 
what favorable to their views, they employed these to beat- 
down such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. Whitgift 
made great use of this weapon in his controversy with Cart- 
wright. Bishop Parkhurst wrote to Gualter, a celebrated 
Swiss divine, cautioning him on this head, adding, that he had 
refused to communicate some of Gualter's letters to Whitgift ; 
because, ' if any thing made for the ceremonies, he presently 
clapped it into his book and printed it.' — Strype's Annals, ii, 
286, 287. But these divines had formerly delivered their 
unbiased judgment, disapproving of such temporizing mea- 
sures. Cranmer having signified to the Genevese reformer, 
that he « could do nothing more profitable to the church, than 
to write often to the king,' Calvin wrote a letter to the arch- 
bishop in 1551, in which he lamented the procrastination usee*, 
14* 



298 THE CHURCH, 

and expressed his fears, that < a long winter would succeed to 
so many harvests spent in deliberation.' — Epist. p. 62; Oper. 
torn, ix, Strype's Cranmer, p. 413. Peter Martyr, in June, 
1550, gave it as his opinion, that 'the innumerable corrup- 
tions, infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be 
reformed only by a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, 
and unadulterated original principles.' And the prudential 
advice, that as few changes as possible should be made, he 
called 'a device of Satan, to render the regress to Popery 
more easy.' — Burnet, hi, Append, p. 200. Gualter, in a letter 
dated Jan. 16, 1559, says, that such advices, though ' according 
to a carnal judgment full of modesty, and apparently conducive 
to the maintenance of concord,' were to be ascribed to ' the 
public enemy of man's salvation ; ' and he prophetically warns 
those who suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves 
in England, that 6 afterward they would scarcely be able to 
eradicate them by all their efforts and struggles.' — Ibid, iii, 
273. Append, p. 265. 

" Fuller says, that the English Reformers i permitted igno- 
rant people to retain some fond customs, that they might 
remove the most dangerous and destructive superstitions; as 
mothers, to get children to part with knives, are content to let 
them play with rattles.'' Yery good ; but if children are 
suffered to play too long with rattles, they are in great danger 
of not parting with them all their days." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 299 

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION OF THE AMERICAN 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Introducing his author, Chapin, from whom he quotes on 
this subject, Mr. Schuyler says, page 209,— « We give the 
reader a catalogue of the names of the bishops, in the line of 
the apostolical succession in the church of England, through 
which our episcopacy is derived. The line of succession as here 
given, is traced through the archbishop of Canterbury to Au- 
gustine, who was consecrated by Vigellius, the twenty-fourth 
archbishop of Aries, in France, and JEtherius, the thirty-first 
bishop of Lyons, — whose commissions are traced in a direct 
line, through Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to St. John. That 
this catalogue is perfectly correct we have not the least doubt" 

As a matter of some interest, I would like to ask our author 
why he has not given us the pure Anglican line, without pud- 
dling at all through the feculent and unwholesome bogs of 
Rome ? Why does he not stand to the popular modern notion 
of an independent and separate Anglican church, planted on 
the soil by an apostle, by Paul, or James the son of Zebedee, 
or Peter, or Simon Zelotes ? Possibly, he has some little 
doubt of the practicability of tracing such a line with exact- 
ness and certainty. He has none, however, in regard to the 
one which he has selected. " That this catalogue is perfectly 
correct " he has " not the least doubt." 

Does he mean that he has an undoubting knowledge, or an 
undoubting faith of the perfect correctness of this catalogue ? 
His assurance, I need hardly say, must be the assurance of 
faith; for knowledge he will not pretend that it is possible for 
him to have. Take almost any name that occurs in this list, 
previous, we will say, to the time of William the Conqueror, in 
the eleventh century, and how will he proceed to verify the 
necessary facts to show that that name belonged to a man, who 
was a bona fide bishop, duly consecrated to the office, by a 



300 THE CHURCH, 

bishop, or by bishops, that had been duly consecrated before 
him % Mr. Schuyler may have no doubt of the perfect regu- 
larity of this succession, but I am an unbeliever; and now the 
question is, how am / to be convinced ? He may show me 
plausible reasons for supposing that the succession may have 
been regular and uninterrupted ; he may establish a tolerable 
presumption in its favor ; but this will not relieve my difficulty, 
because I can show better reasons for supposing that there have 
been many breaks in the line of that succession, and that there 
is, at least, ground for a forcible presumption that it is utterly 
unworthy of any credit whatever. Now, it devolves upon our 
Episcopal friends to establish their pretended succession by well 
attested records, and by clear documentary evidence. We want 
such testimony for it, as would be demanded in a court of jus- 
tice, to prove the parentage of an individual, claiming to inherit 
property by virtue of his being the lineal descendant of some 
person who died a hundred years ago. Do they say, " that is 
absurd, such testimony is entirely out of the question in a case 
like this?" We reply, that to pretend to furnish such testi- 
mony may be absurd, but it is not absurd in us to ask for it. 
It is the very thing that we ought to have ; and nothing less 
than this ought to be thought of, by them or by us. They do 
not come claiming to inherit a farm, or a thousand farms, 
but the entire grace of God, a complete monopoly of powers 
and privileges, under the original charter which Jesus Christ 
gave to his apostles, and which was bequeathed by them to 
their successors, on the ground that they, and they alone, are 
the apostles' lineal descendants, to whom, in this case, the inher- 
itance belongs. Shall we not ask for clear, unequivocal, and 
positive testimony? Are we not justified in demanding full 
proof, before we consent to be ousted from all that we have 
heretofore deemed our rights? They say it is absurd, do 
they ? that such testimony as we call for, is entirely out of the 
question in a case like this ? Very well ; if such testimony can 
not be produced, then the long and the short of it is, that they 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 301 

can not make out their case. Talk to us of strong presump- 
tions! Of proof that puts it "next to impossible " that they 
should be mistaken! Why such proof would not weigh a 
feather, if the suit were brought for a doubloon, in any respect- 
able court in Christendom. It looks brave on paper to make 
out a long list of names, with the name of St. John the apostle 
at the top, and of bishop White, of Pennsylvania, at the bot- 
tom, and to call it the line of the apostolical succession of the 
American Episcopal church; and, beyond a doubt, there are 
very many, just weak and ignorant enough to swallow the 
joke. They stare at this array of names with profound vene- 
ration, never doubting that it is a veritable genealogy, by which 
the apostolical descent of our American episcopal prelates is 
established, as really and truly as the lineal descent of Christ 
from Abraham through David, by the genealogy given in the 
first chapter of Matthew's gospel. There is now and then, 
however, I suppose, a man who knows that this line of apostol- 
ical succession is, for the most part, as fanciful as that famous 
vine, of which I have an indistinct recollection, in the old nur- 
sery tale, that grew up to the moon, upon which an aspiring 
English gentleman once ascended, till his progress was cut 
short by the severe and awful tones of a huge giant, growling 

from above. 

" Phe, phi, plio, plium," etc. 

Episcopalians, assuming that their theory is sound, and that 
the very existence of the christian church depends upon a true 
succession in a line of bishops from the apostles, infer that that 
succession has been maintained, and that they have it, from 
the acknowledged care which God exercises over his church. 
Taking for granted the main thing to be proved, that the true 
church exists by virtue of the apostolical succession in a line of 
bishops, they say, it betrays an infidel spirit toward God, to 
suppose that he has not taken care of the succession, and pre- 
served its integrity. It is a favorite notion with them to place 
this succession of theirs on the same ground of importance to 



302 THE CHURCH, 

the church, with the holy scriptures, and then to argue, that as 
the providence of God has preserved the latter in their integrity, 
in all the translations through which they have passed, from 
generation to generation, so, we may believe, that it has the 
former. They do not, therefore, demand absolute proof of their 
succession as a/ac£,but are willing to take it upon trust This 
presumption lacks nothing to make it forcible, save some rea- 
sonable evidence in favor of the episcopal theory. Let us have 
proof that the apostolical succession stands on the same ground 
of importance to the church with the holy scriptures, and then 
we shall begin to listen with respect to this kind of reasoning. 

We say, on the other hand, that if a true succession from the 
apostles, in a line of bishops, were in any manner essential to 
the existence of the christian church, God would have taken 
care, in the first place, that there should be no room for doubt 
in the minds of any of his people respecting its importance; 
and in the second place, that there should be no lack of evi- 
dence in regard to the regularity of the succession as a fact. 
He would have provided us, on whom the ends of the world are 
come, with as ample means of satisfaction respecting the suc- 
cession, both as a doctrine and a fact, as we have for satisfying 
ourselves respecting the divine origin, and the present purity of 
the scriptures. He would not have permitted any serious dark- 
ness to gather over this subject in either branch of it. Instead 
of inferring the succession as a fact, from an assumption of the 
principle of prelatic episcopacy, we infer from the utter impossi- 
bility of establishing the principle that it is absurd to look for 
the fact; and from the equal impossibility of establishing the 
fact, we are still more strengthened in our conviction that there 
is no confidence to be put in the principle. We think our 
method of reasoning evinces no less piety, and far more good 
sense, than that of our opponents. 

In a direct inspection of the catalogue of bishops with which 
we are furnished, as drawn up by Mr. Chopin, a variety of 
points is presented, which invite our attention. We can not 



ITS MINISTRY ATO WORSHIP. 303 

even glance at all of them. We propose simply to furnish ex- 
amples of the kind of criticism to which this catalogue is liable. 
If we begin at the beginning, the name which first offers itself, 
is that of St. John the apostle. Now was St. John the apos- 
tle, a bishop? Is he ever so styled in the scriptures ? Pres- 
byter he calls himself, but where bishop? In what one respect 
can it be shown that he resembled a modern episcopal prelate? 
By what right, then, is his name placed at the head of such a 
catalogue as this ? Had he any official character save his pres- 
byterial one, which was communicable to others, and in which 
he might have successors ? This list of episcopal bishops, at its 
very first name, revives the whole of our previous discussion in 
regard to the apostolical office, and if we have shown, as we 
certainly claim to have done, that the apostolical office was ex- 
traordinary, and not successive, either in its nature or design, 
we might reasonably be saved from any farther trouble with 
this subject. If the apostles, as such, were not bishops, and 
their apostolic office was not successive, then, of course, the 
whole claim of prelatic succession falls to the ground. 

But look at the next name, that of Polycarp, bishop of 
Smyrna. Has it ever been proved, or can it be, that Polycarp 
was bishop of Smyrna in the prelatic sense? We have demon- 
strated in the most conclusive manner, that for the first two 
centuries and upward, the term bishop was used in the church 
convertibly with presbyter, precisely as it is used by the sa- 
cred writers themselves in the New Testament ; and that the 
utmost distinction that appears during all that period, is that of 
president-presbyter, or pastor, presiding over a single congrega- 
tion, differing from other presbyters in the nature of his duties 
but not at all in the grade of his ministerial office. We affirm 
here, and we claim to have proved, that Polycarp was no more 
a bishop in the sense in which William White was bishop of 
Pennsylvania, than he was civil magistrate or king. The grand 
difficulty with this succession of diocesan prelates is, that it 
lacks a beginning. Our Episcopal brethren never can show, 



304 THE CHURCH, 

either that the apostleship was intended to be perpetuated by 
such a succession as they claim, or that such a succession, in 
point of fact, ever commenced* 

But it is not solely for the lack of a beginning that this chain 
fails. We are prepared to show, even on episcopal principles, 
that there are breaks in it all along in its continuation. Let us 
take the name of Phiegmund, ordained archbishop of Canter- 
bury, according to Godwin in his lives of the English bishops, 
by pope Formosus, A. D. 891. Of this pontiff it is credibly 
affirmed, that he obtained his election by perjury, and that his 
entire life was one of the most abandoned and outrageous wick- 
edness. Cormeniu, himself a Roman Catholic, says of him, in 
his history of the popes, that " he died at the age of eighty 
years, after having put to death in his quarrels, one half of the 
population of Rome." His authority, at the time of his eleva- 
tion to the popedom, was violently disputed, on the ground 
both of personal ineligibility and irregularity in the proceedings ; 
and after his death, Stephen Seventh caused his dead body to 
be exhumed, and a formal sentence of condemnation to be 
passed against him, for having " pushed his ambition so far, as 
to usurp the See of Rome, in defiance of the sacred canons, 
which forbade this infamous action? 1 All his ordinations were 
declared to be null and void, and those whom he had ordained 
were directed to be ordained again. This decree of condemna- 
tion against Formosus, was afterward confirmed, in its utmost 
extent, by pope Sergius Third. 

Now I will say nothing of the fitness of Formosus to per- 
petuate the succession. It is claimed by Episcopalians that 
neither the character of the ordainer, nor the manner in which 
he obtained his place, has any thing to do with the validity of 
his acts, — that the simple question is — was he fully invested 
with the episcopal office ? But if the acts of Formosus were 
valid, so also were those of Stephen Seventh, and Sergius Third. 
What, in this case, becomes of those whom Formosus ordained, 
and of their successors? Phlegmund, who received from 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 305 

Formosus whatever episcopal grace lie may have had, is placed 
then, to say the least, in an extremely questionable position. 
We believe that to the great majority of unbiased minds, the 
chain of the English apostolical succession, will forever seem to 
be in want of a link at his name, and that no possible reasoning 
will avail to persuade them of the contrary. 

The next name to which we direct attention is that of Ro- 
dolph or Rodulph, put down in the list as ordained A. D. 1114. 
Of this archbishop, it is said by Selden, (works, vol. iii,) that 
he was invested with his office merely by receiving from the 
king, the pastoral staff and ring, without any consecration 
whatever. " Much stir," says Selden, " both at Rome and in 
England, was touching investiture of bishops and abbots by 
lay hands; Anselm, archprelate of Canterbury, mainly oppos- 
ing himself against it, w T hose persuasion so wrought wdth the 
king, that it was permitted to be discontinued from that time. 
Notwithstanding this, in the year 1107, by the ring and pasto- 
ral staff — per annulum et baculum, (as Matthew Paris tells,) 
was, by the same Henry, one Rodolph made archbishop of 
Canterbury T There is a slight discrepancy of the dates, but 
the identity of the persons can not be questioned. What 
becomes, then, of the link in this chain of succession, at the 
name of Rodulph ? 

We refer next to the case of Henry Chichely, ordained arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1414, by pope Gregory Twelfth. 
To say nothing of the character of either of these personages, it 
is enough to inform the reader that Gregory was one of three 
who claimed, at the same time, to be invested with the papal 
authority; that previous to his ordination of Chichely, he had 
been condemned in a council, and that, subsequently, at the 
council of Constance, all his acts were formally disannulled, 
and he was declared to be neither pope nor bishop. How, 
then, stands the case with Chichely, on episcopal principles? 
Was he a true successor of the apostles? I think it will 
be difficult to satisfy any reasonable mind, that the chain of 



306 THE CHURCH, 

the Eno-lish apostolical succession is not broken again at this 
place. 

Mattheio Parker, ordaiaed archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 
1559, is in even a worse predicament. I find his case so well 
stated in a recent publication, which has just come into my 
hands, from the pen of Dr. J. N. Campbell, of Albany, that I 
can not forbear to quote it in full : "Dr. Matthew Parker, was 
consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, in obedience to letters 
patent of queen Elizabeth, in the year 1559, in the chapel of 
the palace of Lambeth. Strype and Burnet, the Episcopal, and 
Neal, the Puritan historian, all agree that the persons who per- 
formed this act were Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins. 
These bishops, according to Neal, had been deprived (i. e. 
deposed) in the last reign, for not one of the present bishops 
would officiate — facts admitted by the two other historians. 
Strype says of this consecration, 'all things were rightly and 
canonically performed.' JSTeal says, i it was performed in a plain 
manner, — only by the imposition of hands, and by prayer.' 
But the point to which we desire to direct attention, is the 
unquestionable fact, that doubts were entertained at the time, 
whether Parker's consecration was valid, principally because 
the persons peforming the act had been deposed in the last 
reign, and had not yet been restored. Accordingly, to allay 
these doubts, seven years after the consecration, the parliament 
passed an act to confirm the validity of it, which set forth, 
according to Strype, the Episcopal historian, that the queen 
had, in her ' letters patent,' ' by her supreme power and author- 
ity, dispensed with all cases or doubts of any imperfection or 
disability that might any way be objected against the same.' 
Such is the source from which the whole English succession 
flows : a consecration commanded by the queen of England, 
performed by four bishops deposed by the same authority 
which created them, and confirmed by an act of parliament; a 
consecration in which the church had no voice, and declared, 
by even the Oxford divines, to be irregular and a scandal." 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 30 7 

I will not ask, as Dr. Campbell does, if there is not abund- 
ant ground here for suspicion and doubt, but I ask, if it is not 
perfectly evident, even on Anglican principles, that the chain 
of succession is absolutely broken in Matthew Parker i Does 
not deposition disqualify a christian minister from performing 
any ministerial acts ? Of what avail, then, was the form of 
consecration in this case ? And could an act of parliament, 
authorized by a queen of England, make up the deficiency 
which here existed ? 

Coming down, now, to more recent times, I would inquire 
of the defenders of the English apostolical succession, whether 
it has yet been proved, that archbishop Tillotson ever received 
christian baptism? Of course, on Anglican principles, he 
could not have been bishop without this, for without it he was 
not even a christian, or a member of the church. Evidence of 
this archbishop's baptism has a thousand times been asked for, 
but has never yet been furnished. He, in his own lifetime, was 
repeatedly challenged to produce proof on this point, but never 
did it. That he was not baptized in infancy is undeniable, 
since his father was a Baptist, and no proof whatever exists, of 
his having received the ordinance afterward. Under all the 
circumstances, considering how much has been said on this 
subject, how much was said while Tillotson lived, and how 
often the proof of his baptism was called for, and called for in 
vain, it is fair to conclude that this prelate was really an unbap- 
tized person. That he was ever ordained as a deacon, is 
as much a matter of doubt, as £hat he was baptized. How 
will our Episcopal friends dispose of this difficulty, and relieve 
their succession of the fatal doubts that are again gathering 
over it ? 

Similar to the case of Tillotson, is that of Thomas Seeker, 
elevated to the see of Canterbury in 1738. This person was 
baptized, but on Anglican principles his baptism was of no 
account. Says Dr. Adam Clarke, vol. xii, of his miscellaneous 
works, page 171, — "Mr. Thomas Seeker, afterward archbishop 



308 THE CHURCH, 

of Canterbury, was the son of a dissenting minister, born in 
1693. He was baptized after the form of that church, and 
studied at three dissenting schools successively, until he was 
nineteen years of age, when he went to the university of 
Oxford, and afterward entered the communion of the church of 
England " Clarke proceeds with a particular account of the 
successive steps by which he finally attained to the primacy, 
and adds, — "We hear nothing of his ever having been 
rebaptized." 

Again, therefore, What becomes, on Anglican principles, of 
the boasted succession? Either Seeker was not a successor 
to the apostles, being not even a member of the christian 
church, or, the ministrations of men not episcopally ordained 
are valid. 

Thus I might amuse myself to almost any extent, in 
pointing out defects in this most amusing line of Episcopal 
genealogies ; but why should I multiply examples, when one is 
enough ? 

What I would like to say, in concluding this chapter, I prefer 
to say in the language of eminent Episcopalians. 

Archbishop Whately, in illustrating the small reliance which 
can be placed on the regularity of the proceedings, by which y 
anciently, individuals were raised to the episcopal dignity, 
says, — "Even in later, and more civilized and enlightened 
times, the probability of an irregularity, though very greatly 
diminished, is diminished only, and not absolutely destroyed. 
Even in the memory of persons living, there existed a bishop, 
concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty 
prevailing, as to when, and where, and by whom, he had 
been ordained, that doubts existed in the minds of many 
persons, whether he had ever been ordained at all." 

Again he says, — " Irregularities could not have been wholly 
excluded without a perpetual miracle ; and that no such mirac- 
ulous interference existed, we have historical proof. Amidst 
the numerous corruptions of doctrine and practice, and gross 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 309 

superstitions that crept in during those ages, we find recorded 
descriptions, not only of profound ignorance and profligacy of 
life, of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest irregulari- 
ties in respect of discipline and form. We hear of bishops 
consecrated when mere children ; of men officiating, who barely 
knew their letters; of prelates expelled, and others put into 
their places by violence ; of illiterate and profligate laymen, and 
habitual drunkards, admitted to holy orders ; and in short, of 
the prevalence of every kind of disorder, and reckless disregard 
of the decency which the apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable 
that any one even moderately acquainted with history, can feel 
a certainty that, amidst all this confusion and corruption, 
every requisite form was in every instance strictly ad- 
hered to, by men, many of them openly profane and secular^ 
unrestrained by public opinion, through the gross ignorance 
of the population among which they lived, and that no one not 
duly consecrated and ordained was admitted to sacred offices." 

It seems to me, speaking with all honesty, that there must 
be some singular defect in ther-structure of that person's mind, 
who does not perceive the unanswerable force of Whately's 
statement in this passage. He says, in the same connection, — 
* There is not a minister in all Christendom, who is able to 
trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual 
pedigree." 

Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, Scotland,— whom I quote 
here for the sake of his own citations contained in the passage, — 
in his book on "Puseyite Episcopacy," page 256, says, that in re- 
gard to the ancient bishops, " It is utterly impossible to produce 
any evidence of the regularity of their baptisms, or of the va- 
lidity of their orders, or to tell, in many instances, which of them 
was first and which of them was last. Eusebius, the most 
early of our church historians, confesses that he could not do 
it; for he says, that he was 'like a man walking through a 
desert, with only here and there a light to direct him;' and 
that he had been able to collect such notices as he had procured, 



310 THE CHURCH, 

1 of the successors, not of all, but only of the more illustrious 
apostles' — Hist. Eccles. lib. i, cap. 1. And if such was his 
want of light in the fourth century, will you, or Mr. Newman, 
or Mr. Gladstone, throw more light on these matters in the 
nineteenth? And he says, in another passage, 'Who they 
were, that imitating these apostles, (Peter and Paul,) were by 
them thought worthy to govern the churches which they 
planted, is no easy thing to tell, excepting such as may be col- 
lected from Pauls own words' — Lib. iii, cap. 4. On which 
Stillingfleet remarks — 'Then what becomes of our unques- 
tionable line of succession of the bishops of several churches, 
and the large diagrams made of the apostolical churches, with 
every one's name set down in his order, as if the writer had 
been clarencieux to the apostles themselves ? Are all the great 
outcries of apostolical tradition, of personal succession, of un- 
questionable records, resolved at last into the scripture itself, by 
him from whom all these long pedigrees are fetched ? Then 
let succession know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to the 
scriptures ; and withal, let men take heed of overreaching them- 
selves, when they would bring down so large a catalogue of 
single bishops from the first and purest times of the church, 
for it will be hard to others to believe them, when Eusebius 
professeth it so hard to find them.' — Irenicum, page 297." 

Bishop Hoadley says, — "As far as we can judge of this, 
God's providence never yet, in fact, kept up a regular, uninter- 
rupted succession of rightful bishops." " It hath not pleased 
God in his providence, to keep any proof of the least proba- 
bility, or moral possibility of a regular uninterrupted succession ; 
but there is a great appearance, and humanly speaking, a cer- 
tainty of the contrary, that the succession hath often been 
interrupted^ 

The bishop of Hereford, in a charge some years since to his 
clergy, uses the following language,—" You will exceed all just 
bounds, if you are constantly insisting upon the necessity of a 
belief in, and the certainty of the apostolical succession in the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 311 

bishops and presbyters of our church, as the only security for 
the efficacy of the sacraments,"—" To spread abroad this notion, 
would be to make ourselves the derision of the world." 

Riddle, another English Episcopalian, in his "Plea for 
Episcopacy," says,— "Whatever may become of the apostolic 
succession as a theory, or an institute, it is impossible at all 
events, to prove the fact of such a succession, or to trace it 
down the stream of time. In this case, the fact seems to 
involve the doctrine ; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure, the 
doctrine is irrecoverably lostP *■*..* "It is impossible to 
prove the personal succession of modern bishops, in an unbroken 
episcopal line, from the apostles, or men of thea postolic age." 

We conclude with remarking, that if our Episcopal brethren 
can find a pleasing entertainment in attempts to trace back the 
genealogies of their bishops to the apostles, we are sincerely 
glad of it, but they must not require us to receive their playful 
fancies for sober historical verities. We can look upon it as 
nothing less than an insult offered to our common sense. 



HISTORICAL NOTICES. 

Under this caption, an anonymous friend of Mr. Schuyler, 
at page 215 of his book, is very severe upon me for alledged 
blunders, or worse than blunders, in certain historical references 
contained in my sermon. We are informed in the brief note 
with which Mr. S. presents him to his readers, that he " has 
access to one of the best private libraries in the United States." 
We should expect him, therefore, to be a person of large 
attainments, and thoroughly versed in all these matters. 

I said, " It is given on the authority of Eusebius, that at a 
council held in Antioch in the year 260, there were present 
more than six hundred bishops." The learned gentleman thus 
notices my assertion, — " I have hunted out his quotations from 
Eusebius, Dr. T. never could have read Eusebius, or if he 



312 THE CHURCH, 

has, he is open to the charge of dishonesty; besides he is 
incorrect in his dates." In regard to the date, I am quite wil- 
ling to confess that either through an oversight of my own in 
copying, or through a fault of the printer, and of my proof- 
reading, an error of five years was really committed. It should 
have been 265, and not 260. This however, can not be con- 
sidered a very serious inadvertance. But what else was so very 
wrong in my statement as to justify the opinion, that I have never 
read Eusebius, or else, am open to the charge of dishonesty? 
I said, " more than six hundred bishops were present at the 
council." Is not this exactly what Eusebius affirms? My 
astute critic annihilates me in the following manner: 

"Of the second council in 265, Eusebius says, — book vii: 
chap. 28, after naming several bishops who took an active part: 
1 Sex centos quoque alios qui una cum presbyteris et diaconis, eo 
confluxerunt, nequaquam difficile fuerit recusere, verum hie quos 
dixi illustres prae ceteris habebantur.' i Six hundred other 
bishops also, who together with presbyters and deacons, 
flocked thither, and whom it would not be difficult to enu- 
merate.' " 

The reader, by noticing the italics and the capitals used by 
the writer in his rendering of the passage from Eusebius, will 
be able to comprehend his idea. He supposes that the " more 
than six hundred," is to be made up by counting the bishops 
and presbyters and deacons together/ I would like to know 
whether I am replying to the criticism of a boy who has access 
to his father's library, or to the very owner of the library. If 
to the latter, there is no hope for him. He will surely die a 
blockhead in spite of his opportunities. If a lad in any respect- 
able grammar school in our city should make a blunder like 
this, he would deserve to be beaten. " Several bishops who 
took an active part" and " sex centos quoque alios," six hundred 
others also, make "more than six hundred bishops," who, 
according to Eusebius, " with the presbyters and deacons that 
flocked thither, it would be difficult to enumerate." I will not 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 313 

say that this critic proves himself, either to have never read 
Eusebius, or to be open to the charge of dishonesty ; but I do 
say, that however much he may read Eusebius, or any other 
author, he is little likely to be made the wiser, — and that he 
evidently lacks the wit to do much mischief in the world by 
his knavery. 

My next assertion was, that "as late as the year 410, Augus- 
tine and the bishops of his province in Africa, held a conference 
with the Donatists, at which there were present over five hun- 
dred bishops." My critic completely stultifies himself again on 
this point. He goes into a very careful history of the affair 
with the Donatists, in the course of which he says, — " When, 
however, Attalus was put down, not five hundred, but two 
hundred and seventeen bishops of Africa, feeling that his 
rescript was injurious to the Catholic church, met at Carthage, 
in the year 410, for the purpose of petitioning Honorius to 
recall his rescripts. Augustine was present, but did not preside, 
as one would infer from Dr. Thompson's statement, but Aurelius, 
bishop of Carthage. Dr. T. gives his quotations so unfairly," 
&c. What has this sixth provincial council held in Carthage, 
in 410, to do with the conference of which I spoke? /was 
not talking about the council, but another matter entirely, a 
conference agreed upon at that council, and held very soon 
after,— some say the same year, some the year after, for which 
reason I was careful in my sermon to say, " as late as the year 
410." Let Mosheim be heard, — vol. 2, chap, v, sec 2, — "This 
law, however, was not of long duration. (The law of the em- 
peror Honorious, giving religious toleration to all parties.) It 
was abrogated at the earnest and repeated solicitations of the 
council which was held at Carthage in the year 410; and 
Marcellinus, the tribune, was sent by Honorius into Africa, with 
full power to bring to an end this tedious and unhappy con- 
test. Marcellinus, therefore, held at Carthage in the year 411, 
a solemn conference" <fcc. " The catholic bishops who were 
present at this conference, were two hundred and eighty-six in 
15 



314 THE CHURCH, 

number; and those of the Donatists two hundred and seventy- 
nine." Now, if we add together two hundred and eighty-six 
bishops and two hundred and seventy-nine bishops, the sum, 
that is, if bishops add like other people, is, I believe, " over five 
hundred bishops," according to my statement. Bishop Burnet, 
also, in his observations on the first and second canons, called 
apostolical, says, — " In some countries we find the bishoprics 
very thick set. They were pretty throng in Africk ; for, in a 
conference which Austine and the bishops of that province had 
with the Donatists, there were of bishops present, two hundred 
and eighty-six, and one hundred and twenty absent, and sixty 
sees vacant, which in all makes four hundred and sixty-six. 
There were also two hundred and seventy-nine of Donatist 
bishops." I trust that this matter now is straight, so that my 
reviewer can understand it. 

Again; I am sharply called to my account by this accom- 
plished gentleman for a misnomer. He says, — u He, (Dr. 
Thompson,) quotes ' Victor Uticensis : ' the work turns out to 
be ' Victor Vitensis.' How he makes out of it 4 Uticensis,' he 
ought to explain." 

I will, with all my heart, my dear sir ; — First, then, you 
must know that Victor was bishop, as, in those early times, 
they were in the habit of calling all pastors of churches, of 
Utica, or, which is equivalent, of the church in Utica; not 
Utica on the Mohawk river, in this state, but a famous city of 
the Phoenicians, on the northern coast of Africa. Are you 
attending? Well, then; he is called Uticensis, from Utica, 
the place where he lived, by converting the final vowel into 
ensis, a very common method among the Greeks of getting 
new names of distinction for individuals who needed them. I 
hope I make myself intelligible. The younger Cato, it may 
be recollected by you, from your extensive reading in that best 
private library in the United States, committed suicide in this 
same city of Utica, whence he was styled, as a convenient way 
of distinguishing him from all other Catos, " Cato Uticensis:' 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 315 

By good writers, Victor has very generally gone by the name 
of Uticensis, from the first; yet by a corrupt change of the u 
into v, by dropping one letter and transposing another, some 
have made Vitensis out of it, for which they ought to be 
ashamed. 

I said, "Victor Uticensis informs us in his book, "De Persecu- 
tions Vandalica," (the book may be found by those who desire 
to see it, in the Bibliotheca Patrum,) which was a persecution 
by one body of christians against another, — that from the part 
of Africa in which it raged, six hundred and sixty bishops fled, 
besides a great number who were imprisoned, and many more 
who were tolerated. Upon the lowest estimate, counting the 
bishops of the persecuting party with those of the persecuted, 
there could not have been fewer of them in that part of Africa 
alone, than from two to three thousand. My object was, to show 
from the great number of bishops, that these bishops could not 
have been diocesans, in the episcopal sense, but must have been 
simply pastors of churches, ordinary christian ministers ; the 
word bishop being used in the New Testament sense. My critic 
says, — " I hardly think Dr. T. could have made such a parade 
about the six hundred and sixty fugitive bishops, which he esti- 
mates to be about one-third of the whole, had he known, as we 
do, that the primitive practice was to ordain bishops in every 
city." Why, my dear sir, I reply, that is the very thing which I 
do know, and which I desired to make my hearers know when 
I preached that sermon. " The primitive practice was to ordain 
bishops in every city ; " and more than that, in every place 
where a christian church was gathered, just as the practice of 
Presbyterians always has been, and is at this day; and hence 
we infer, that the primitive bishops, instead of being prelates, 
like bishops in the Episcopal church, were plain Presbyterian 
ministers, each one having charge of his own parish, and, as 
a bishop indeed, "feeding the flock of God, taking the over- 
sight thereof" My object was to show, that as the term bishop 
in the New Testament, means simply minister, or pastor, so 



316 THE CHURCH, 

in the early records of the church, in the times immediately 
following those of the New Testament writers, it means the 
same; and the proof in part, was drawn from the very great 
number of bishops, showing that all the pastors of churches 
must have received that designation. Can it be supposed that 
the number of churches exceeded the number of bishops, when, 
by the lowest possible estimate, there were at least two thousand 
of the latter in a single small district of Africa ? 

In these early times it may be mentioned here as a fact, 
that on the island of Crete, just about one-third as large as 
the little state of Maryland, there were one hundred bishops. 
Were they Episcopal prelates, does any one suppose, or Presby- 
terian pastors ? I might give any number of similar examples, 
showing, beyond the possibility of a rational doubt, that the 
primitive bishops were nothing more nor less than parish 
ministers, 

I have devoted space enough to this subject. The reader 
perceives, that, in every material instance, the statements of my 
sermon were rigidly correct, and that the attempt to disprove 
them has only betrayed the utter incompetency of the critic. 
He evidently ventured beyond his depth, not at all compre- 
hending the topics to be considered. If I have indulged in 
unusual severity in my notice of his strictures, let the amount 
of provocation in the nature of his attack upon me, be weighed, 
and especially the impertinence of such an attack from such 
a person. Had he given his name, I probably should have 
felt bound to treat him with some respect, but the laws of 
courtesy afford no protection to the anonymous. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 317 

NUMBER OF EPISCOPALIANS AS COMPARED 
WITH THE VARIOUS OTHER SECTS. 

I said in my sermon, page fifty-five, — « With the exception 
of the English and American Episcopal churches, all the 
reformed churches in the world are Presbyterian ; that is to say, 
they are all organized on the principle of parity in the one 
order of ministers, called, in the New Testament^ presbyters. 
All, without exception, save Episcopalians, have abjured the 
principle of hierarchism as a corrupt invention of men, leaving 
them in a very small minority." What reply does my reviewer 
make to this? Read it, and admire, — page 217. 

" Says bishop Delancy, in his sermon entitled ' The Faithful 
Bishop,' 'geographers tell us, that of the eight hundred millions 
of inhabitants on this globe, but little more than two hundred 
millions bear the christian name ; and of these two hundred 
millions, one hundred and eighty millions acknowledge the 
authority of christian bishops in the church, as possessing, in 
contradistinction from other ministers, the governing and or- 
daining power.' In a note, he (bishop Delancy) appends the 
following : 

" * Geographers differ somewhat as to the precise amount of 
christian population in the world. Malte Brun makes the 
Protestant population of Christendom about forty-two millions; 
one-half of which being Episcopal, would make it stand thus: 

Total christian population of the world, . . . 228,000,000 
Those who reject the office of a bishop in the 

church, 21,000,000 

Leaving, as the number of those who retain the 

office, 207,000,000 

" ' According to Hassel, it would stand thus : Total christian 
population, two hundred and fifty-one millions ; of whom those 



318 THE CHURCH, 

who retain the office of bishop in the church amount to two 
hundred and twenty-three millions; those who reject the office, 
to twenty-seven millions and a half. From other calculations it 
is made out that five-sixths of the christian world receive this 
form of the ministry.' " 

This is an answer, is it, to my statement that the English 
and American Episcopal churches alone, of all the reformed 
churches in the world, retain the hierarchical feature, and that 
in so doing, compared of course with other reformed churches, 
they are in a very small minority ? I am replied to by a quotation 
from bishop Delancy, which has just about the same relation to 
the comparative amounts of population in the several planets, 
that it has to the subject on which my statement was made. 

Who denies, that if Episcopalians are counted with all the 
vast multitudes of nominal christians in the Roman Catholic 
and Greek communions, they have a majority ? and that if to 
all these are added the Lutherans, and Moravians, and Metho- 
dists, and others, who, though they have renounced the principle 
of hierarchism, have nevertheless adopted a species of episco- 
pacy which we ourselves do not object to for them, if they like 
it, that majority is considerably increased? We made our 
statement, let it be observed, of reformed churches, and of the 
principle of hierarchism, not of presbyterial episcopal super- 
intendence; and we repeat that statement as literally true. 

Among all christians that pretend to be reformed, the Epis- 
copalians of England and America are perfectly solitary in 
maintaining the corrupt institution of a hierarchical ministry, 
and in this respect they are in a very small minority. In 
regard to the principle of parity, Lutherans, Moravians, Metho- 
dists, and all others who are called episcopal on account of the 
feature of superintendency in their ecclesiastical systems, are 
with us, and not one whit behind us in their abhorrence of 
\i* ntrvhhm, and in this comparison are to be counted with us. 

TIhj forma in which Christianity is professed are very numer- 
ous, but the whole are comprehended in three leading systems: 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 319 

the Roman Catholic, the Eastern or Greek, and the Protestant 
or Reformed. Protestantism is professed in two chief forms, — 
presbytery, which rejects the great external feature of the 
Romish and Greek systems of a hierarchy of bishops, and 
admits only the government of the church by a body of minis- 
ters all equal in rank ; and episcopacy, which retains that chief 
external feature of the Romish and Greek systems, and admits 
the government of the church by a hierarchy of bishops, whose 
spiritual authority is claimed to be derived from the apostles, 
by transmission through an uninterrupted series of ordinations 
from the beginning. Now we say, that in the Protestant or 
reformed section of nominal Christendom, to which the Episco- 
pal churches of England and America belong, they, in retaining 
the hierarchical feature, stand alone, and are in a very small 
minority. I have not the figures at hand to show the actual 
difference, but I venture the opinion that they are considerably 
less than one-fifth of the whole. Taking bishop Delancy's 
statement from Malte Brun, that one-half of the Protestant 
population of Christendom is Episcopal, and deducting from 
that all the Lutherans, and Moravians, and Methodists, and 
other christians belonging to churches which have a form o 
episcopacy, but are really Presbyterian, who are included in 
Malte Brun's calculation to make his one-half and any one can 
see how small the proportion must be that will be left. 

What advantage do Episcopalians hope to derive in an argu- 
ment with us, from swelling the numbers of those who support 
the hierarchical form of church government, by counting with 
themselves the hordes of the Romish and Greek communions ! 
Or what advantage do they hope to derive for the same object, 
from counting dishonestly with themselves those who resemble 
them in the mere accident of a name, but utterly reject their 
principle ? 



320 THE CHURCH, 



BARROW ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

My reviewer finds fault with me because the extracts from 
this author in my sermon, " are culled from two pages of an 
octavo volume." I do not see how the extracts are less perti- 
nent on that account. It seems to me that the difference is 
quite imperceptible, so long as they are veritable extracts from 
Barrow, whether they are culled, or taken up as a solid whole ; 
whether they are culled from two pages or from one; or, 
whether they are culled from two pages of an octavo volume, 
or from two pages of a duodecimo. If these are great matters 
with him, they are small matters with me. The main question, 
I think, relates to the nature of Barrow's testimony. I know 
that the main drift of Barrow's reasoning is against the succes- 
sion to the primacy of St. Peter, and the supremacy of the 
pope. But how does he maintain his point? Simply by 
showing that St. Peter could have no successor to his primacy ? 
or by showing that the apostles could have no successors to 
their apostleship ? In the latter way, certainly. " The apos- 
tolical office," he says, " as such, was personal and temporary; " 
(precisely what Presbyterians affirm,) " and therefore, accord- 
ing to its nature and design, not successive or communicable to 
others, in perpetual descendance from them." " Now such an 
office was not designed to continue by derivation ; for it con- 
tained in it diverse things which apparently were not com- 
municable, and which no man, without gross imposture and 
hypocrisy, could challenge to himself." 

What is it that Barrow says was " personal and temporary," 
and " not successive or communicable to others ? " My reviewer 
savs > (page 220,) that he affirms this of "the personal endow- 
ments and miraculous qualifications by which they (the apos- 
tles) were fitted for the extraordinary circumstances of the 
infant church." The reader can see for himself what the fact 
is, — "The apostolical office? says Barrow, was personal and 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 321 

temporary, ' and " not successive or communicable to others." He 
speaks not of the mere accidents of the office, but of the office 
itself. The apostolical office, " as such," that is, in its own 
proper and peculiar nature, was personal and temporary, and 
not successive or communicable to others. My reviewer goes 
on to say, expository still of Barrow's meaning, "It is only the 
apostolical office as characterized by the inspiration and mirac- 
ulous powers of its first incumbents, which he asserts can have 
no succession." But I simply appeal to Barrow himself. What 
does he say ? That the apostolical office, as characterized by 
something personal to its first incumbents, is not successive or 
communicable ? Or, does he affirm this of the office itself, as 
such? Is it some mere temporary character of the office as it 
was first held, that he speaks of, or the very office? From 
such interpreters as this anonymous reviewer, I can say devoutly 
in the language of the prayer-book, — " Good Lord deliver us." 
Having furnished us with this specimen of his critical acu- 
men, he proceeds to make other quotations from Barrow, to 
show that he did truly believe in the doctrine of apostolical 
succession, as it is held by the high-church Episcopal party. 
In other words, he undertakes to make Barrow stultify himself, 
by teaching elsewhere a doctrine which, in the passages that 
have been noticed, he emphatically condemns — to make him 
say, in the face of his own unequivocal denial, that " the apos- 
tolical office, as such," has been succeeded to by multitudes, 
and that it is " communicable to others in perpetual descend- 
ence." Poor Barrow ! well might he exclaim, were he alive, 
and could he know of my reviewer's labors, Save me from my 
friends! If his good character will not save him, I must let 
him go, for, as to taking up these several quotations and show- 
ing, as I might do, that in not one of them does Barrow con- 
tradict his own assertion, which has been already considered, 
I shall not attempt it. The apostolical office, as such, ceased 
with the apostles, but the office of the christian ministry, which 
they held, did not cease with them, and in that they have 
15* 



322 THE CHURCH, 

successors undoubtedly, which is the real doctrine of Barrow 
in all the places which rny reviewer has quoted from him. I 
claim, myself, to be a successor of the apostles in this holy 
office, and to have derived my succession from them, by trans- 
mission, through " the laying on of the hands of the presby- 
tery," when I was ordained. I claim to be a true scriptural 
bishop, in the very sense of the word bishop, as it occurs in the 
New Testament, and as it was used by all the early christian 
writers ; in the very sense of Cyprian, as quoted from Barrow 
by my reviewer, on page 221, and of Chrysostom, on page 
222. Barrow, of course, would not allow, that in denying the 
false doctrine of apostolical succession, which had been the pro- 
lific source of so many abominable corruptions in the Romish 
church, he gave up the derivation of ministerial authority in the 
Protestant churches from the apostles, and he was very careful, 
therefore, to guard this point, and he has done it well. He 
teaches everywhere, that in their apostolical office, as such, the 
apostles had no successors, but that all regularly ordained chris- 
tian ministers are their successors in the only communicable 
office which they held. If Barrow, as an Episcopalian, had 
some ideas of the superiority of the episcopal office, and of 
the exclusive appropriation to it, by general consent, of certain 
ministerial powers and prerogatives, which the body of minis- 
ters should forego and surrender, for the sake of government ; 
and that, in this respect, while all ministers are truly successors 
of the apostles, bishops are so in a larger sense; — that is not 
strange, nor do I reproach him for it. He was a great and 
good man, who has done eminent service to the church, and 
will doubtless do more, if he is not too much maligned by 
such men as my reviewer. 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 323 

INCONSISTENT OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUAL 
BISHOPS OF NO WEIGHT. 

Such is the heading of the concluding article in Mr. Schuy- 
ler's book, furnished by his anonymous friend; the design of 
which is to show that it matters not what the opinions of the 
leading reformers in England were at the time when the refor- 
mation in that country was arrested, and the English church 
took that permanent character and form which it wears at the 
present day. Their views, the writer says, do not affect the 
real question in debate, which is to be decided upon its own 
merits. Now I would be disposed to grant the principle 
claimed here, in all ordinary cases. But this case is peculiar. 
The English church is held up before us, as the only example on 
earth of a truly reformed church. Other reformed churches, 
so called, are no churches, but have broken out of the pale, 
have unchurched themselves, by casting off some things which 
are essential to a true church existence ; but the English church 
came just far enough, and not a step too far. She truly 
reformed, and not ^-formed, stopping at the precise point of 
absolute perfection, and now presents the only instance of the 
true church of the Redeemer in its purity and beauty. I grant 
that the great question in regard to her claims is to be settled 
finally and definitely, by comparing her, as she stands, with the 
unerring word of God in the scriptures. But is there no ques- 
tion in regard to the history of her reformation, in regard to 
the influences under which it was conducted, and under which, 
also, it was arrested, by which the great question may be in 
some measure prejudged, and a probability one way or the 
other be established, that shall cheer us on and lighten our way 
in the main definitive investigation ? Or, seeing that the argu- 
ment upon scripture ground is likely to be endless, and never 
to bring forth a conclusion in which all parties may harmonize, 
is there no question of the kind that has been referred to, whose 



324 THE CHURCH, 

answer may serve as a make-weight to decide, if possible, the 
quivering scales ? or which, at least, may help some minds in 
resolving their troublesome and most adhesive doubts? It is 
certainly a most remarkable thing, that the English church in 
her work of reformation, stopping so soon upon the road, 
should have been so fortunate as to hold up at the very point 
of perfection. Other reforming churches found a very natural 
stopping place at the end of the way, when they had divested 
themselves of the last rags of the papacy ; but the church of 
England held up in medias res, before the end was even in 
sight, and yet, it was at the exact moment when she had per- 
fected herself! This is truly wonderful, and the question natu- 
rally arises, — Was there any thing in her peculiar circumstances, 
or in the peculiar influences under which she acted, that may 
serve in any measure to account for this most fortunate issue of 
her reforming movements ? Had she better and more enlight- 
ened men at the head of her affairs, than the church in Scotland, 
or the churches on the continent ? Was she less embarrassed 
than these other churches, by secular interference ? Had she a 
fuller opportunity for acting out the free, enlightened, and con- 
sentaneous christian sense of her wisest and best men ? And, 
as a fact, was it in a peculiar manner, in the unhindered, unin- 
fluenced acting out of the free, enlightened, and consentaneous 
christian sense of her wisest and best men, that she finally 
arrested her reform where she did, and took on the shape and 
character in which she now appears ? 

Now, if all these questions, and others like them, are to be 
answered clearly in the affirmative, then it seems to me that 
the scriptural argument for the English church begins on high 
vantage ground, and has every thing in the actual circumstances 
of the case, to prepare its way, and give it force. Or, if the 
argument has been taken, and the conclusion hangs in suspense, 
then, the peculiar circumstances of the case must serve strongly, 
if not effectually, to determine a preponderance on the Angli 
can side. If, however, these and similar questions are to be 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 325 

answered clearly in the negative; if the English church, at the 
time referred to, had no better or more enlightened men than 
the church in Scotland, or the churches on the continent; if 
she. was far less free than these other churches from the embar- 
rassments of secular interference, being completely in the hands 
of a wicked and worldly government, which used its power to 
the utmost; if the opportunity afforded her of following the 
free, enlightened, and consentaneous christian sense of her 
wisest and best men, was really far inferior to that enjoyed by 
other churches; and if, as a fact, in the final adjustment of her 
reform, and consolidation of her permanent state, the free, 
enlightened, and consentaneous sense of her wisest and best 
men was not followed, then, I say, the scriptural argument on 
her behalf must be overwhelmingly conclusive, or it will be 
a hopeless labor forever to those who undertake it; and to those 
minds that are balanced upon that argument, having previous- 
ly attended to it, the circumstances of the case must, I think, 
afford immediate relief, and decide a most cordial rejection of 
her claims. In Scotland, the cause of reform met with abun- 
dant opposition from the government, but it was able to bear 
down that opposition, and succeeded finally in establishing itself, 
in spite of all its enemies, secret or open, according to the most 
enlightened views, and fondest wishes of its supporters and 
friends. Such was the fact also upon the continent. Luther, 
and his coadjutors, in Germany, — Calvin, and Zuinglius, with 
their coadjutors in Switzerland, under God, were enabled to -carry 
out their views, and to constitute the churches with which they 
were severally connected, in the fullest accordance with what they 
approved as scriptural and expedient. Yery different was it in 
England. The church in that country was very part and parcel 
of the civil government. So thoroughly was it interlaced with 
the state, that any material change of its outward structure, 
inevitably involved changes to the same extent in the state 
itself. To demolish and reconstruct the ecclesiastical, was to 
demolish and reconstruct the civil. Revolution in one, beyond 



326 THE CHURCH, 

what was simply speculative and spiritual, was revolution in the 
other. While changes of opinion, therefore, on merely doctri- 
nal points, were easily tolerated ; while the government did not 
care a pin whether the church were Calvinistic or Arminian in 
its doctrine, but was willing it should be either, or neither, or 
both, as the thirty-nine articles bear witness, changes of eccle- 
siastical structure and administration were from the first stead- 
fastly resisted, and none were admitted, even to the last, except 
such as might be, without disturbing the established order of 
things. What the wisest and best men in England desired, 
what they longed after, and sought to obtain, I have shown 
abundantly in other places. But what could they do against 
the colossal power of the throne, backed by nearly all the no- 
bility of the realm, almost every family of which had younger 
members dependent for their influence and incomes, on the 
preferments of a hierarchical and state-paid church? They 
could do nothing but be content with the largest reform which 
that government would give them. Fortunately, things were 
in a condition which gave the reformers power. The people, 
to a great extent, were with them, and their wishes could not 
be wholly disregarded. Besides, England had given deep 
offense to the reigning powers of Europe, and her very exist- 
ence depended on the maintenance of peace and concord at 
home. Hence, as Macaulay says, — " As the Protestants needed 
the protection of the government, so the government needed 
the support of the Protestants. Much was, therefore, given up 
on both sides ; a union was effected, and the result of that union 
was the church of England." 

Will it be pretended that such facts as these are to have no 
weight, in ascertaining what degree of respect is due to the 
high claims which are set up for the English church ? I affirm 
that it is utterly impossible that they should not have weight 
with every human mind that perceives them. Nevertheless, 
certainly, they ought not to decide the question. God may 
have wrought another miracle for his church in England, as we 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 327 

know that in former times he has wrought many, and given 
her a true and perfect reformation, in circumstances, that on 
natural principles, would seem to exclude the possibility of it. 
Who can tell? Therefore, "to the law and to the testimony." 
The scriptures alone are competent to afford a final and infal- 
lible decision. Let it be proved from the scriptures, that the 
English church is what our Episcopal friends claim that she is, 
that her reformation did go just far enough, and no farther, 
and that the result of it was to bring forth the church of 
Christ in its purity, as he constituted it at the first, and intended 
it should be ; — prove this, I say, from the scriptures, and I will 
bow to the authority. I will own the miracle, by which this 
glorious result was secured, and praise God for his grace. 

It is true that the English reformers accepted of their church 
as it was finally established, and served it, and served in it, 
praying for its peace and prosperity, and submitting themselves 
to its ordinances. What then? Were they dishonest men 
because they did this, while in their hearts they fully believed 
that the reformation had been incomplete ? Is it so, then, that 
no honest man can be a member of a church which he does 
not believe to be in all respects perfect ? In that case, if the 
principle were acted upon, I fear we should soon have few 
honest men in any of our churches. We fully believe that the 
system of prelacy has no ground in the scriptures ; that there 
is neither precept nor precedent there to recommend it ; and we 
believe, that as a form of church government, it is unwise and 
inexpedient ; yet we do not regard it as positively sinful, so as 
to vitiate whatever else in a church is good, and make the 
church which adopts it, no church. So, doubtless, felt the pious 
reformers of England. Unable to obtain all that they desired, 
they were wisely thankful for all they could obtain, and tried 
to make the best of it, rejoicing in what was good, and submit- 
ting, in the hope of better days to come, to the evil which they 
could not cure. I believe that I am an honest man, and yet I 
am free to confess, that with all my disrelish for episcopacy, 



328 THE CHURCH, 

and my deep conviction that it is both without scripture war- 
rant, and very far from being the best form of government the 
church can have, that had I been in the place of one of those 
reformers, I should have had a good conscience in doing as 
they did. 



CONCLUSION 



I have finished the work which I proposed to do. I wish I 
could think that I have done full justice to my theme. I have 
done the best that I could, in the circumstances, and now com- 
mit the result to God's holy providence, earnestly praying that 
if no good influence shall be exerted by what I have written, 
there may, at least, be exerted no influence that is evil. My 
main purpose has been, to furnish Presbyterians with a simple 
and easy method of meeting the arguments that are commonly 
used against them, and of defending their own system ; and at 
the same time to help those minds that are embarrassed with 
doubts, respecting the comparative claims of prelacy and parity. 
I have not now, nor have I ever had, the least idea of making 
converts from the ranks of confirmed Episcopalians — I hardly 
expect from that class to obtain readers. I doubt if many of 
them are at all accustomed to read works on this subject which 
do not inculcate their own peculiar views. As little as I expect 
that my book will make converts from the ranks of confirmed 
Episcopalians, do I expect that it will exert any perceptible 
influence in arresting the onward progress of the Episcopal 
church. That church has attractions for many that will always 
serve, especially in our large towns and cities, to replenish and 
augment its numbers. Many, who can not reconcile themselves 
to the senseless mummeries of the Catholic service will be 
drawn into the Episcopal church by their natural fondness for 
forms, and imposing ceremonial display. Episcopalians, more 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 329 

than any other Protestant christians, are fond of elegant church- 
edifices and furniture, of pictorial adornments, and highly 
artistic choral performances, and whatever else they lack, these, if 
at all within their reach, they will not be without. Many will be 
drawn to them by the natural influence of these things. Their 
church is an easy one for easy christians. They have little or 
no discipline for unruly members, so that a reputable standing 
may be maintained among them by persons, who, in almost 
any other communion, could not avoid the extremest censures 
and discipline. This makes it a place of refuge for the discon- 
tented and restive of other churches, and determines, at once, 
the election of it by those who wish to maintain some sort of 
religious character, without the ordinary restraints of a religious 
profession. All these circumstances make it a fashionable 
church. People of fashion go to it, because it does not inter- 
fere with their fashionable pleasures, and because it has the 
means of gratifying a fashionable taste. As a fashionable 
church, it not only attracts fashionable persons, but great num- 
bers besides, who are aspiring to the same distinction* Then* 
in addition to all these things, the Episcopal church affords the 
utmost latitude of theological views to its ministry and members. 
It puts nobody in a strait jacket. Its articles cover the whole 
ground from the north pole of Calvinism, to the extreme south 
of Arminianism ; and its practice consecrates any thing, that 
any one chooses to think, in any direction, so long as on the one 
hand he does not embrace Popery, or on the other utterly reject 
the authority of the bishop. No man inclined to go into the 
Episcopal church need give himself any uneasiness about his 
doctrinal sentiments; and no man need hesitate about going 
there, from the least apprehension, especially, if he lives in a 
large city, that he shall not be able to find a preacher that will 
suit his taste. Does he want a man strictly orthodox, and 
rigidly Calvinistic? Mr. A. will please him perfectly. Does he 
prefer a low and flaccid Arminianism ? Mr. B., just around the 
corner in the next street, will meet the requirement to a tittle- 



330 THE CHURCH, 

Must his preacher be a staunch revivalist ? Mr. C. is second to 
none of that class. Must he be a bitter opposer of revivals, 
even an utter disbeliever in them and mocker of them, who will 
tolerate nothing among his people but the dull monotony of a 
mere prayer book religion, and eschew excitements as he would 
schism and death ? Mr. D. then, is his man. The picture could 
not have been more faithful, had he sat for it. Will he bear to 
hear nothing in the pulpit but pretty moral essays, very short ? 
At the reverend Dr. E's church he may count with a perfect 
certainty on hearing nothing else from year's end to year's end. 
Does he desire to learn the lessons of extreme high-churchism ? 
Young Mr. F. will suit him then, for, if all his sermons had 
been imported direct from Oxford, with Dr. Pusey's own im- 
primatur upon them, they could not be more highly impreg- 
nated than they are with the genuine Oxford element. Is his 
mind, perchance, deeply imbued with a love for the simple 
gospel, and wherever he goes, will he insist upon being fed with 
the pure evangelic inanna? Happily, the Episcopal church 
can provide for him, for there are those in her ministry, and I 
praise God for it, who have no superiors as faithful messengers 
of the grace of life. Thus all sorts can be suited. In this re- 
spect it is a broad net that the Episcopal church casts forth 
upon the waters. Episcopacy gains farther a large advantage, 
with a certain order of minds, from the very extravagance of its 
pretensions, and the positiveness with which those pretensions 
are maintained. There is something in our very nature, that 
predisposes us, in determining the relative merits of conflicting 
claims, to accord superiority to that which is most audacious, 
and which presses itself upon us with the most unswerving 
pertinacity. We are very apt to think that where there is most 
smoke, there is most fire, and that the biggest thunder comes 
from the biggest cloud. Episcopalians claim, that of all Protes- 
tants, they alone have the church, the christian ministry, and 
the sacraments. They are the true " Israelites, to whom per- 
taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 33 { 

giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 
whose are the fathers," and whatever else may be regarded as 
distinguishing the elect people of the Most High. Others are 
only dissenters, schismatics, aliens, — and their churches mere 
human societies, dissevered from Christ the head, and having 
no share in the streams of heavenly grace. This claim they 
put forth with the utmost seriousness, and urge with as much 
pertinacity as if they verily believed that the honor of God, 
and the salvation of souls depended on it. Who can wonder, 
that to minds of a certain class it is deeply affecting ? It would 
be strange, if it were not. The claim is imposing. It is grand. 
With many persons it is overwhelming, and they are taken 
by it as by storm, without even asking for the first evidence. 
They think there must be something in it, or good men would 
not be found so earnestly advocating and urging it. 

The Episcopal church has always received, and probably 
always will receive, from other denominations, numerous acces- 
sions to its ministry. I have not the means of ascertaining 
with any certainty what proportion of its living clergy is com- 
posed of this class of persons, but it is undoubtedly very large. 
I think I can say with truth, that quite one-third of those with 
whom I am personally acquainted, were educated under an- 
other system. Episcopalians boast of this, and refer to it as 
evidence of the peculiar force with which their system com- 
mends itself to educated minds. Some facts, therefore, are 
important to be stated here, bearing upon this point. It is to 
be considered, in the first place, that young men, aiming at the 
christian ministry, are ordinarily not in possession of very, 
highly educated minds, at the period when they elect the 
church in whose fellowship they will perform their labors. At 
the time when this question is commonly decided by them, they 
are much more likely to be influenced by certain considerations, 
which I propose to mention, than by any clear and well-digested 
views of christian doctrine and the facts of sacred and profane 
history. I believe it will not be denied that young men, of the 



332 THE CHURCH 

class that we call educated, are far more apt to be very am- 
bitious than very learned ; and the prelatic system of church 
order has, what the presbyterial system has not, an object to set 
before them. In our churches there is no high place of dignity 
and power to be sought and won. There are with us no dis- 
tinctions but those of superior merit, and pre-eminent usefulness, 
— distinctions, to which the kind of ambition that I now speak 
of, is by no means likely to aspire. Does any one suppose, that 
of all the young men that have entered the ministry of the 
Episcopal church from the ranks of parity, not one has been 
attracted there, by the prospect of one day becoming a bishop ? 
It may seem a small thing to mention the gown, and bands, 
and muslin robes which compose the Sunday uniform of Epis- 
copal clergymen, but as drops make up the ocean, so small 
things make up the sum of life ; and I must not fail to ask my 
readers, if it is not, at least, supposable, that some young men 
are drawn into the ministry of the Episcopal church, by the 
idea that they shall look well in all that finery ? Young men 
are very silly sometimes, and in respect to nothing, more than 
the article of dress ; and I am sorry to say that young men 
aiming at the christian ministry have never shown themselves 
to be exceptions to this remark. A good Episcopal lady, many 
years ago, lamented to me that I was not in her church, be- 
cause, being tall, and very erect, I would look so well in the 
robes. There is a consideration yet to be named, which has 
exerted, I have no doubt, more influence than all the rest. The 
duties of the ministry in the Episcopal church are compara- 
tively light, and demand but little exertion, and little talent. 
It is the fashion, in that church, to have far fewer services, than 
are common with us. For the devotional parts of those ser- 
vices, provision is already made in the prayer book. The 
sermons are expected always to be short, about half the ordinary 
length of ours; and as the preaching is esteemed secondary to 
the reading of the prayers, the great demand is for good read- 
ing, rather than for good preaching. It is notorious that men 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 333 

may sustain themselves reputably in the Episcopal church, with 
a grade of ability in their discourses, which among us would 
not be tolerated. They may become doctors of divinity, on 
an amount of capital that with us would hardly gain them 
parishes. This is a matter well understood, and I need not 
enlarge upon it. Who doubts, that many diffident young men, 
fearful of failure where higher demands would be made upon 
them, besides many indolent ones, shrinking from much labor, 
and like many more, of feeble capacity, ambitious of an honor- 
able standing at small cost, and with small means — who 
doubts, I say, that many such, diffident, indolent, and weak, are 
drawn into the Episcopal church by a consideration of what I 
have now stated ? There is one Episcopal minister, holding no 
mean place, in no mean city of our land, who, in a conversation 
with me, before entering that church from ours, frankly owned 
that he was going there, mainly for the reason that he feared 
he never could maintain a respectable standing in our church. 
He is now a high-churchman of the highest kind. Who 
doubts, that if the truth were known, he would appear to be one 
of a very large company? Illustrative of another point to 
which I have alluded, may be mentioned the case of a young 
man of rather superior abilities, who entered the Episcopal 
ministry from our ranks some five years ago, assigning, as his 
sole reason, to myself and others, the latitude of opinion on 
doctrinal subjects, which was allowed in that church. It is a 
fact which may here be mentioned, that young men of un- 
doubted piety have gone from us into the ministry of the 
Episcopal church, from a simple conviction, that in consequence 
of the lack of really faithful and evangelical preachers in that 
communion, they might be more extensively useful there, than 
they could be in any other connection. I have been credibly 
informed that this was the case with a certain eminent divine 
who, to the profound grief of all that knew his worth, died 
recently in one of our principal cities. 



334 THE CHURCH, 

Thus we see, that there are ample ways of accounting for the 
success of episcopacy among us hitherto, without at all suppos- 
ing that a rational conviction has prevailed, to any extent, of 
its peculiar claims; and we see, also, that while human nature 
remains such as it is, there is little prospect that its success will 
be rendered, by any cause, less than it has been. Certainly I 
should never dream of essentially impairing that success by any 
efforts of mine. The Episcopal church will flourish still, and 
large numbers will flock to it. I do not apprehend, however, 
that it will ever become relatively a large church in this coun- 
try. It will hold its own, and make its natural increase of 
those whose idosyncrasies peculiarly incline them in that direc- 
tion. Its form of government, on account of the monarchical 
feature of it, can never be extensively popular with Americans^ 
and the generally prosaic character of our people, affords a 
sufficient guarantee that its forms of worship will never be 
extensively admired. There is also a strong working through- 
out the length and breadth of our land, of the old Puritanic 
element, against which prelacy will never be able, on any large 
scale, to make headway. In addition to all this, Americans 
are eminently a reading and a thinking people, who will have 
good reasons before they believe, and episcopacy has no such 
reasons to give. 

Should our land be visited with large and extensive outpour- 
ings of the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt the Episcopal church 
would suffer by it. As compared with her, the strength of 
other Protestant churches, destitute as they are of whatever 
appeals to the outward senses and aims to affect the imagina- 
tion, lies in the power of truth and in their spirituality. Revi- 
vals of religion, therefore, must strengthen them where their 
true strength lies, and weaken her in the same vital point. 
The truth of this observation is attested by the whole history 
of revivals. Let our non-prelatical churches remember this, 
and let them pray and labor, above all, to secure in their midst 
the presence of their Saviour God. Then shall they "have a 



ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP 335 

strong city; and salvation will God appoint for walls and 
bulwarks. 11 

In taking leave of Mr. Schuyler, I desire to say, that con- 
formably with my promise at the outset, I have had no purpose 
in any thing that I have said, to wound his feelings. I have 
written honestly and earnestly, and sometimes, no doubt, have 
expressed myself with a degree of sharpness which it would 
have been better for the success of my own argument, if I had 
restrained ; but I can say, with all truth, that there has been no 
moment when, in my heart toward him personally, there was 
any other feeling than that of kindness. Precisely so I feel 
toward him now, and with the utmost cordiality, offer him my 
hand. 



THE END. 



INDEX. 



Prefatory.— A word of explanation. . . » . . . . . . 5 

An unj ust accusation ........ 6 

Something amusing , . . 8 

The Church, its ministry and worship ........... » 11 

Mr. Schuyler's Position 12 

The Invisible Church 15 

The Main Questions considered 20 

The Church 20 

The Ministry op the Church.... 29 

First scriptural argument for episcopacy; three orders in the Aaronic 

priesthood , 35 

Second scriptural argument for episcopacy; the consecration of Christ, 

and his ordination of the twelve and the seven ty . , ... 40 

Third scriptural argument for episcopacy; a second order constituted 

by the appointment of deacons. 50 

Fourth scriptural argument for episcopacy; the three-fold ministry 

completed by the discovery of another order called presbyters 57 

Was the apostleship designed to be a permanent and successive office. . . 68 
Episcopal arguments for the permanence and successiveness <if the 

apostolic office 99 

The case of Matthias 100 

The term " apostle " applied in the New Testament to others besides 

the twelve .,.„,, 1 14 

Were Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Andronicus, Junia, and Epaph- 

roditus apostles 1 , 120 

Was Timothy prelatic bishop of Ephesus ? 125 

Was Titus prelatic bishop of Crete 1 143 

Were the angels of the seven churches of Asia prelatic bishops ? 153 

Is there authority for presbyterial ordination ?. . . . ........... 175 

Testimony of the fathers in favor of presbyterial ordination ........ 192 

The apostolical succession 221 

The Worship of the Church 228 

Mr. Schuyler's Appendix 265 

Republicanism of the American Episcopal church 265 

The lgnatian epistles. 269 

John Calvin's views of episcopacy 280 

Sentiments of English reformers respecting the government and worship 

of the church 292 

Apostolical succession of the American Episcopal church 299 

Historical Notices , 311 

Number of Episcopalians as compared with the various other sects 317 

Barrow on the apostolical succession , 320 

Inconsistent opinions of individual bishops of no weight 323 

Conclusion t o o 328 



347 7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16068 
(724)779-2111 



